Compromise is, generally, not a dirty word. Husbands and wives do it all the time. Business partners do it too. Anytime two individuals or groups have a disagreement, compromise helps them manage that disagreement.
Where it becomes a dirty word, however, is when you know the other side won’t change their endgame. They’ll keep pushing for the same thing, so by compromising, you simply give them what they want incrementally.
This is the case with guns, where once upon a time, full-auto weapons were available by mail for anyone and everyone who had the cash. Time and time again, pro-gun forces compromised with the anti-gun activists, and peace was had…for a little while. Until the anti-gun crowd wanted something else, and then there was more compromise.
Over and over again, compromise happened, and what really took place was that the anti-gun zealots were shifting thing in their direction over and over again, and we pro-gun folks got jack.
So, we stopped. We quit giving ground. We figured we’d given enough over the years and we were done with it. We wanted our rights back, as a matter of fact. All of them.
Yes, many of us want to be able to buy a machine gun through the mail and have it sent directly to our homes.
But the left is still wanting compromise. What’s worse is that over at the Huffington Post, some of them seem to think they’ll get it.
Again and again the United States mourns a mass shooting, most recently in Texas. Before that, Las Vegas, Orlando, Virginia Tech. Street violence in cities like Oakland, Detroit and Chicago is alarmingly familiar. Many in the media, government and social media have called for change, asking when will we stop sending thoughts and prayers and do something about gun violence.
There is a bipartisan bill moving through the U.S. Senate currently that may help improve one important aspect of gun violence in our nation. Crafted by Sen. Chris Murphy, the Murphy-Cornyn bill ― S. 2009 ― is co-sponsored by 32 colleagues and supported on both sides of the aisle, would require all gun sales to include a background check, including sales at gun shows and over the internet.
At a time when once again the country seems hopelessly divided on the question of gun ownership, the bipartisan Murphy-Cornyn bill is a fig branch.
Passions run high on both sides of the gun debate, Second Amendment rights vs. gun control. The ability to protect oneself and loved ones from violent crime vs. the option of removing weapons from the public domain to protect everyone from gun violence. Safety is the bottom line for both sides. The Murphy-Cornyn bill represents a compromise within this debate.
No, it doesn’t.
First, S 2009 isn’t some compromise bill. It’s a bill that gives gun grabbers exactly what they’ve wanted for several years now. It gives them universal background checks. Of the 32 co-sponsors, only one is not a Democrat…and that’s Bernie Sanders, a man far too liberal for the modern Democratic Party.
Let’s let that sink in just a bit.
Sen. John Cornyn also has nothing to do with S. 2009 in any way I can find. However, Cornyn did sponsor S. 2135, which is the Senate’s version of Fix NICS, and Chris Murphy is a cosponsor for.
It can be argued that Fix NICS is a compromise bill, sure, but it’s not. Not really.
Fix NICS is designed to simply make the rules in place work as designed. It doesn’t create new regulations for gun buyers or gun owners. And that’s why it has a much better chance of passing.
Second, part of the reason compromise isn’t possible–besides the aforementioned fact that we compromised enough and the calls for compromise never stopped coming–is that we get tripe like this Huffington Post nonsense from supposedly educated individuals. The author of this piece talks about her doctoral work, indicating that she’s highly educated. That’s supposed to make us trust her.
Meanwhile, she’s pushing S. 2009 as if it’s some kind of middle ground. I can’t help but believe this is a malicious attempt to get people to support a universal background check bill without understanding what they’re backing. After all, an educated person should be able to do some rudimentary research, right?
She then goes on:
A common sense approach to agreement should include elements from both sides of the opinion. These could include a limited number of lawfully permitted handguns or rifles for personal use, perhaps including a requirement for training and licensure on each weapon class prior to permit issuance. Safe storage of weapons as recommended by most firearms organizations including the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, could be mandated by law rather than suggested.
Automatic weapons and assault weapons would be illegal to own for private citizens, including collectors, allowing only law enforcement and military possession of these weapons. Many states have legislation pending which would do this already, but many, like Illinois, have significant opposition. One argument is that these legally owned guns would become illegal to own, which may cause government interference in the matters of a private citizen. This argument is difficult to overcome for some.
Additionally, despite states rights, transport and sales of firearms over state lines has to be more tightly controlled. As recently shown by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s Gun Trace Report, guns in many cities with tough gun laws can be traced back to areas with lax gun control.
And here we see what compromise really means to the anti-gun crusader. “Compromise with me” really means “shut up and do what I tell you.”
No, so-called assault weapons shouldn’t be relegated exclusively for police and law enforcement use. No, the transportation of firearms is something that does not require more “tightly controlled.” Gun sales across state lines are already covered under regulations…regulations that are ignored by the criminals, surprise surprise.
For people like this, it’s not about compromise. It has never been.
Compromise is the word they use to pretend that they’re being reasonable for those who have no opinions on the subject. Compromise is a nice, reasonable word, after all. Reasonable people compromise to have common ground, right?
But compromise isn’t really on the agenda. It’s just a means to an end, that end being the eventual dismantling of our Second Amendment rights.
So no, compromise isn’t possible…unless the gun control crowd is willing to start giving some stuff up for a change. That’s the only way we gun rights advocates are going to compromise ever again.
Don’t like it?