JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
First to define what 'reasonable' and 'compromise' are.
Reasonable is when you define a goal, say for example to keep animals from eating your garden. You then define a criteria to accomplish that goal, such as less food eaten by critters, less damage to objects placed int he garden like signs and stakes, and healthier plants. Then you do some analysis of what means might meet your criteria, and take the most effective options you can implement. When the neighbor, who might not like your garden, suggests that getting your roof replaced might help, that is not a reasonable option because it has nothing to do with acheiving your goal of reducing varmint consumption of what you are growing in your garden.
Compromise is where both sides of a controvercial issue give something up that the other side wants and an agreement is reached that both sides can live with. If one side is doing all the giving, reducing how much they give up is NOT compromise, it is simply lessened subjugation, and I say subjugation because a group wont give up something for nothing in return voluntarily unless they are being forced to one way or another.
Preventing more massacres like the one at Sandy Hook is the claimed goal of the liberals and gun grabbers push for 'reasonable' gun regulations and 'compromise' is their stated means to that objective.
But most of their proposed solutions are simply irrelevant to what happens at such massacres and thereby ineffective. People who do such massacres dont have to use a semi-automatic rifle for example. They can and have used other weapons varying from knives, to bombs to poison gas. Since such attacks do not require the use of semiautos, banning some of them is not going to accomplish the goal of reducing such massacres.
And their so-called willingness to compromise is little more than rolling gun owners amd;otting them but will agree to take less if gun owners would hold still while the gun grabbers steal gun owners rights, property and freedom to live as they prefer to.
When gun grabbers propose to ban 120 types of rifles, it is not compromise to ban only 60. That is still robbing gun owners. A compromise would give gun owners something in return so that they can live with the final arrangement. So far, I have not heard/read of one gun grabber asking the gun owning community what it is that they would like in return for agreeing to restrictions on gun rights. Not even once.
This is because the gun grabbers and others among the libtard herd have no intention on giving gun owners anything in return. When one is one a moral crusde to banish item X one is not obligated to compromise, in their view. They are doing it for 'the sake of the little children' and when they even mention children, gun owners are supposed to immediately go into a fetal position and beg for the chance to help gun grabbers take whatever they need or suspect might help the gun grabbers in their crusade.
But the public, thank God, is starting to wake up to this kind of bullshit. It only took the NRA a week to emerge from their self-imposed silence and hammer back. At one time they used to pitch in and toss out gun rights till the leftists agreed that the NRA was on the same crusade, and all the while the NRA was supposed to be speaking for gun owners in the USA. Which is part of the reason we have GOA and Pratt competing with the NRA for gun owners support.
But when the libtards go on a crusade it is usually because the owners of this country decide that this crusade MUST be done at any cost. They will do anything, sacrifice anything to acheive that goal. Their owned MSM outlets will sacrifice millions in ad revenue to blast the public psyche with incessant propaganda ever time they think it might have any impact at all. They will twist and re-interpret any laws that might help them, and evade any laws that might hinder them.
They will demonize or belittle the advocates of the opposition in TV shows, movies, songs and plays until people feel ashamed that they would ever be associated with such evil forces and will join groups that work against hte intersts of the general public in order to mask any prior history of doing this new evil thing, whatever the latest cause is. For an example notice how Wikipedia lists the US NRA as the last option in their disambiguation page, instead of going to the NRA by default. Pathetic.
These are the same scare tactics, agit-prop, and slander the left has used since the end of World War 2 when the Western libtards began to see the West as too similar to the old Nazi evil that repulsed them so much, and so the West could not have any redeeming features in telescopic perspective, and so embraced 'otherness' and began to undermine Western civilization from the inside.
Disarmament of the free citizens of the Westernnations has long been a declared goal of the radical left and one that they put in place or reinforced at every opportunity from Germany to Russia to China, and then instituted their horrific programs of mass slaughter not long after while our Western press ignored and covered it all up unless that nation lost a war and could no longer buy the press to advance their own causes.
Gun owners are not going to engage in the lefts false compromise. Gun owners are not going to agree to putting laws into place that do absolutely nothing to prevent school massacres but only strip guns away and the left should be ashamed for standing on the graves of these little kids to push a long prior held goal of total disarmament.
But the left has no shame, and for too long gun owners have no had defenders with enough spine to stand up for them, not untill laPierre came along.
But the times, they are a'changing.
Reasonable is when you define a goal, say for example to keep animals from eating your garden. You then define a criteria to accomplish that goal, such as less food eaten by critters, less damage to objects placed int he garden like signs and stakes, and healthier plants. Then you do some analysis of what means might meet your criteria, and take the most effective options you can implement. When the neighbor, who might not like your garden, suggests that getting your roof replaced might help, that is not a reasonable option because it has nothing to do with acheiving your goal of reducing varmint consumption of what you are growing in your garden.
Compromise is where both sides of a controvercial issue give something up that the other side wants and an agreement is reached that both sides can live with. If one side is doing all the giving, reducing how much they give up is NOT compromise, it is simply lessened subjugation, and I say subjugation because a group wont give up something for nothing in return voluntarily unless they are being forced to one way or another.
Preventing more massacres like the one at Sandy Hook is the claimed goal of the liberals and gun grabbers push for 'reasonable' gun regulations and 'compromise' is their stated means to that objective.
But most of their proposed solutions are simply irrelevant to what happens at such massacres and thereby ineffective. People who do such massacres dont have to use a semi-automatic rifle for example. They can and have used other weapons varying from knives, to bombs to poison gas. Since such attacks do not require the use of semiautos, banning some of them is not going to accomplish the goal of reducing such massacres.
And their so-called willingness to compromise is little more than rolling gun owners amd;otting them but will agree to take less if gun owners would hold still while the gun grabbers steal gun owners rights, property and freedom to live as they prefer to.
When gun grabbers propose to ban 120 types of rifles, it is not compromise to ban only 60. That is still robbing gun owners. A compromise would give gun owners something in return so that they can live with the final arrangement. So far, I have not heard/read of one gun grabber asking the gun owning community what it is that they would like in return for agreeing to restrictions on gun rights. Not even once.
This is because the gun grabbers and others among the libtard herd have no intention on giving gun owners anything in return. When one is one a moral crusde to banish item X one is not obligated to compromise, in their view. They are doing it for 'the sake of the little children' and when they even mention children, gun owners are supposed to immediately go into a fetal position and beg for the chance to help gun grabbers take whatever they need or suspect might help the gun grabbers in their crusade.
But the public, thank God, is starting to wake up to this kind of bullshit. It only took the NRA a week to emerge from their self-imposed silence and hammer back. At one time they used to pitch in and toss out gun rights till the leftists agreed that the NRA was on the same crusade, and all the while the NRA was supposed to be speaking for gun owners in the USA. Which is part of the reason we have GOA and Pratt competing with the NRA for gun owners support.
But when the libtards go on a crusade it is usually because the owners of this country decide that this crusade MUST be done at any cost. They will do anything, sacrifice anything to acheive that goal. Their owned MSM outlets will sacrifice millions in ad revenue to blast the public psyche with incessant propaganda ever time they think it might have any impact at all. They will twist and re-interpret any laws that might help them, and evade any laws that might hinder them.
They will demonize or belittle the advocates of the opposition in TV shows, movies, songs and plays until people feel ashamed that they would ever be associated with such evil forces and will join groups that work against hte intersts of the general public in order to mask any prior history of doing this new evil thing, whatever the latest cause is. For an example notice how Wikipedia lists the US NRA as the last option in their disambiguation page, instead of going to the NRA by default. Pathetic.
These are the same scare tactics, agit-prop, and slander the left has used since the end of World War 2 when the Western libtards began to see the West as too similar to the old Nazi evil that repulsed them so much, and so the West could not have any redeeming features in telescopic perspective, and so embraced 'otherness' and began to undermine Western civilization from the inside.
Disarmament of the free citizens of the Westernnations has long been a declared goal of the radical left and one that they put in place or reinforced at every opportunity from Germany to Russia to China, and then instituted their horrific programs of mass slaughter not long after while our Western press ignored and covered it all up unless that nation lost a war and could no longer buy the press to advance their own causes.
Gun owners are not going to engage in the lefts false compromise. Gun owners are not going to agree to putting laws into place that do absolutely nothing to prevent school massacres but only strip guns away and the left should be ashamed for standing on the graves of these little kids to push a long prior held goal of total disarmament.
But the left has no shame, and for too long gun owners have no had defenders with enough spine to stand up for them, not untill laPierre came along.
But the times, they are a'changing.
Last edited:
