It fascinates me when people say, “Why won’t gun owners compromise?” by r3druger

by Vanderleun on August 22, 2017

Let me throw a document into the equation: The Constitution. Yeah, yeah, old news. You’ve heard it a million times.

Well, when the Constitution says “bear arms,” during the period in which it was signed, it meant bear any kind of weapon. Civilians owned the cannons, not the government.

Every man had a rifle. His own. It was either a family heirloom or a tool used to ensure survival. No one dared take a man’s livelihood.

What’s the difference today? Well, most people don’t own cannons. Civies don’t own tanks, helicopters, stealth fighters, or cruise missiles. So what are we left with? Rifles, pistols, in rare cases grenade launchers (which launch non-explosive rounds) and basically the equivalent to pea shooters against a tank.

Seems like a compromise.

We’re not allowed to own anything, because after all, why would any peaceful citizen need one right?

Wrong.

The reason the Second Amendment was the second, and not the tenth, or the fifth, or what have you, is because without it, no other right is guaranteed. Governments, regardless of country or creed takes any measures necessary to further to own authority. It is a promise of history.

What are we, as citizens, left with to defend ourselves with? Literally, pea shooters.

We are told we are not allowed to own machine guns. We agreed.

We are told we are not allowed to carry Into government buildings. We agree.

We are told we are not allowed to carry in certain national parks. We agree.

We are told we are not allowed to defend ourselves on college campuses, despite after time and time again being slaughtered on supposedly “gun-free” areas, but we agreed.

We are told in the 90s we are not allowed to own (inappropriately labeled and completely undefinable) “assault weapons,” but it passed as we had to suck it up for 10 years.

We are told that we are DENIED the right to walk the streets of the most crime ridden cities without means of protecting ourselves, and once again we are left with little say.

Here’s my question, where is YOUR compromise?

I’m not asking you to actually limit your constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So far WE as gun owners are the ONLY ones doing any kind of compromising.

We’re not forcing anyone to do anything. We’re not holding lawmakers at gun point. However, lawmakers are literally holding gun owners at gunpoint to follow the law.

Yes. The government enforces laws. With police. And police carry guns.

We just want to be left alone. We’re not breaking the law. However we make compromise after compromise which limits are pushed every time a gun law passes.

I don’t see you having to compromise a damn thing. Oh, you’re scared because law abiding citizens carry? Boo hoo. But why are you afraid of people who wish you no harm? Why aren’t you instead afraid of criminals who *ahem* are criminals. And don’t follow the law anyway? You think because you pass a gun law he’ll magically turn in his gun out of guilt or civic duty? You can’t be serious.

Because real American gun owners don’t pose a threat to you.

You pose a threat to your own damn rights by chipping away at ours. Rights are equal amongst citizens of this country. When you start pretending you can limit ours, you’re really limiting your own as well. Some great compromising you’ve done.

Found at 2 Wheels Move my Soul.

Comments on this entry are closed.

ghostsniper August 23, 2017, 6:44 AM

First off, NOBODY gets to say what I can possess. period
No explanation necessary, for if you require an explanation your intellectual horsepower is too low to understand any sort of explanation.

But for entertainment purposes I will submit that if YOU get to decide what I possess then I get to dictate what YOU possess and I’ll tell you right up front you are not going to like my decisions at all.
For example, YOU do not get to possess water and food and clothing and shelter from the elements.

What’s that? Those things are necessary for the continuance of YOUR life? Well, isn’t that special, however none of that nonsense is any of my concern as my concern is only in minding your business as I see fit and YOU have nothing to say about it.

How are you liking this thing so far?
Huh? You’re not liking it?
Then why in the fukkin fuk would you ever think I or anyone else would?

Right in the eye, chasmatic style.

You can’t waste much time with these imbeciles as they are incapable of discussion on an adult level. They must be treated identically to how you treat other people’s wayward toddlers that have been neglected by their parents and then subjected to the public with their whining and bawling tantrums.

Just leave the area, or, approach the parents and Right in the eye, chasmatic style.

See? The same methodry works in all circumstances of exposure to grown ups with children brains.

Coddle them and receive more of the same, punish them and receive less of the same.
You owe it to society at large to do your fair share as a village member and help raise the children trapped in grown up body’s. Remember what that klintin kriminal bitch said so long ago, now do your best. A mind is a terrible thing. (HT to dan quayle)

∞
Terry August 23, 2017, 8:26 AM

@ghost-

If I remember correctly, the late and great chasmatic would punch them in the nose, not eye. Carry on.

∞
HH August 23, 2017, 9:44 AM

I miss Chasmatic. I was an honorary member of his Assholes Get a Punch in the Face Club.

∞
Casey Klahn August 23, 2017, 9:58 AM

Exactly what GS said.

∞
Assistant Village Idiot August 25, 2017, 5:55 AM

They might get more listeners is they had proposals that, ya know, actually reduced crime. Absent that, one has the impression that they are really just concerned with cultural dominance.

Nah. Couldn’t be.

∞
Al Martin August 25, 2017, 7:40 AM

One of the many compromises that the supporters of the constitution agreed to was the ten year ban on “assault weapons” that was passed in 1994. The understanding was that after ten years an assessment would be conducted to determine what reduction in crime, if any, had been achieved. The results showed that there was no reduction in shootings. This was not surprising in that these type of weapons are seldom used in crimes. The result was that the ban ended in 2004. Despite any prior agreement that this ten year ban was intended as a test, the groups who oppose civil rights almost immediately began to call for its’ reinstatement despite the fact that it had been proven to have no effect. This sort of dishonesty among the anti-civil rights crowd does not suggest that further “compromises” might be if value.

∞
William O. B'Livion August 25, 2017, 9:34 AM

The answer is we *did* compromise, and you (the one asking the question) never backed off.

In 1920 you could buy a fully automatic rifle *through the mail*. Firearms were not required to have serial numbers. There were NO background checks AT ALL. You used to be able to buy *grenades*.

We have compromised, and where we sit is an *unreasonable* compromise, so we’re taking some back.

∞
William O. B'Livion August 25, 2017, 9:52 AM

Oh, also:
> The reason the Second Amendment was the second, and not the tenth, or the fifth,
> or what have you, is because without it, no other right is guaranteed.

This isn’t accurate.

The original first amendment was about scaling house with the population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment it was not approved.

The original second amendment was about congressional salaries, and is now the 27th amendment.

The original third amendment became the first, and so on.

Their ordering, at least according to one source, was not about importance, but more an ordering of where in the constitution they would have been placed.

∞
Muzzle Blast August 30, 2017, 8:34 AM

Adding:

“We are told we are not allowed to possess *any* firearm or ammunition if we also possess cannabis.”

I’d hazard a guess that most would agree (myself not included in that group).

∞