Wednesday, November 09, 2011

You keep using that word...

...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Weer'd quotes gun-banner Joan Peterson as writing
I don’t make deals on this blog as you know. It’s clear that you guys are not interested in compromising. I am seeking that from others who are more reasonable.
You hear those words a lot whenever gun control is being discussed: "reasonable" and "compromise".

Now, the way I understand it, a 'compromise' is where I give up something I want, and you give up something you want, and we reach a solution that is not perfect but that we can both live with.

A hypothetical compromise would be something like:
"Okay, you can have your Firearm Owner's ID Card law, but there can't be any kind of test; it has to be 'shall issue' to anybody with a pulse and a clean background check. In turn, we can use it to buy any gun we want, regardless of barrel length or bore diameter or rate of fire or across state lines or whatever..."
That would be a compromise. Or
"Okay, we'll give up folding stocks and bayonet lugs if that makes you happy, but in turn, you have to move suppressors to Title I or, better yet, to blister packs next to the ear muffs, instead of making people file paperwork and pay a $200 federal tax for what is a basic piece of safety equipment like the one on your car or lawnmower."
That, too, would be a compromise. See how that works?

So, yeah, Joan, it's easy for me to be uncompromising, since you've never actually offered me anything on which to compromise. It's why I don't read or comment on you people's blogs. If all you're going to do is stick your fingers in your ears and "Lalalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you!" well, two can play at that game.

What are you willing to give up, Joan? Where's your reasonable compromise? You're making it awful easy for me to just yell "Shall not be infringed!" right back at you.

30 comments:

Bubblehead Les. said...

Her idea of Compromise is a Fresh Rope on her Gallows.

TJIC said...

I had an antigun employee once who found out that I carried a pistol at the office, and threw a shit fit.

For weeks we kept "dialogueing" it - he wanted a "compromise".

I didn't quite understand what he was getting at - it's my company, I started it, I own 100% of the stock, I carry my pistol in the office.

I really don't want to give that up, but I might. What's the compromise? Are you going to buy me a Ferrari? Is that the trade?

Needless to say, no "compromise" was reached and I kept carrying.

Btw, later this employee got in an argument with me over his Facebook usage at the office, and responded by throwing a stapler across the room into a wall. I now see why he was antigun: in his mind EVERYONE (including himself) is a dangerous lunatic who can't control their base impulses and will act out violently if given a chance.

(He's no longer with the firm.)

docjim505 said...

I see that you do not understand the liberal definition of "compromise", which is:

"Shut up and do what I want."

To the lib, "compromise" means "to be reasonable". Now, what could POSSIBLY be more reasonable than what they want? These people WALLOW is reasonableness; they spend their entire existence being reasonable. They are EXPERTS at being reasonable. So, naturally, to compromise - to be reasonable - means to agree with them 100%.

Bah.

I have often thought that licences, owner's fees, etc. are not bad in and of themselves; we do those things for cars. But I believe (may I write "know"?) that the left has no desire to leave it there: these are only steps toward bans and confiscations.

So, I refuse to be "reasonable". I refuse to "compromise", because compromise with a lefty on gun control is like a woman "compromising" on sex with a serial rapist: it's not going to end well (unless she's armed...).

Laughingdog said...

An ex-girlfriend had the same concept of compromise when it came the thermostat. I hate being cold. I'll suffer through it in the winter. But in the summer, I prefer it around 78. She preferred 70-72. So I compromised and put it at 75. Her idea of compromise was to keep nudging it down another degree or so at a time until it was set to 70.

Silly me for not understanding that "compromise" actually means "halfway between where we are now and where I ultimately want things to be".

Marko said...

When a mugger demands my car keys and wallet, but I manage to talk him into letting me $20 for a cab ride home, it's not a "compromise".

Ancient Woodsman said...

Her idea of 'compromise' comes from the view of a bully.

At grade-school lunch time, the bully takes the whole cupcake from the meek, tears it in half, gives half back to the meek and grins,"There. Now we can share." For the meek to resist means losing the entire cupcake, getting pummeled at recess, or both.

That is her frame of mind. She is the bully.

Rob Reed said...

Joan got one thing right, as far as I'm concerned: "It's clear you guys are not interested in compromsing."

I'm as interested in compromising with Joan, or any anti-rights person, as an slave would be in compromising with a slave owner. "Ok, I'll still be your slave, but you agree to make the chains lighter."

Note that I'm still willing to work to win back our rights one bite at a time. You can call this a "compromise" but it's different than what Joan is thinking of.

I'm happy to go from a state with "May Issue" CCW laws, to "Shall issue laws - with restrictions" with the goal of moving to "shall-issue - no restrictions" and then the ultimate goal of "constituational carry."

Progess in politics is incremental and compromising how much you get each time is OK and is different from compromosing how much you give up of what you have now.

The difference here is I'm compromsing on how much I can get of WHAT I DON'T HAVE NOW, right now, and I'm not giving up anything that I currently have in exchange.

That's why your hypothetical of "I'll give up bayonet lugs for Title 1 silencers" would never work for me, and why I could never compromise, in any way, with Joan and her ilk.

I'll save compromising for the legislative arena where it's just a technique the anti gunners use to slow down our near inevitable progress to expand our rights. And then, all I'll compromise on is how many of those rights will get back or expand in each bite.

Rob

Sevesteen said...

I've come to the conclusion that Japete is actually a very smart person, and she's undercover, and on our side.

dave said...

Rob, "I'm compromsing on how much I can get of WHAT I DON'T HAVE NOW, right now, and I'm not giving up anything that I currently have in exchange" is precisely the same definition Joan is using.

We just happen to be working to the correct end.

og said...

See, I have a different plan. Here's my compromise, ms peterson: You keep your hands off my freedoms, and I won't use a dremel to expose nerve endings on which I will drip salt saturated boiling oil from my Presto FryBaby until you look like a Blooming Onion.

And people say I'm extreme. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

WV: Lymonst. Condiment for Blooming idiot.

The Raving Prophet said...

I'm with Og on this one.

I see no need to "compromise" even one little bit with those who seek to take freedom away. Is it a wise compromise to trade a FOID for deregulation of suppressors? Well, would women have been happy with a compromise of only being allowed to vote in local elections? Is it a good idea to compromise that we are free from unreasonable search and seizure unless the crime in question is a class A or B felony? Or how about free speech so long as you have a permit for that communications device?

Yeah, I'm not all that interested in compromising fundamental rights down the drain.

Tam said...

The Raving Prophet,

In Tamaraland, people will be able to own nuclear ICBMs, if they can afford them, as is their right. This I firmly believe.

Meanwhile, here in America...

Tam said...

(A perfect example of this is when they crammed NICS down our throats: We should have immediately pointed out that their proposed NICS system rendered the GCA '68 prohibition on interstate sales superfluous and gotten it removed.)

Pathfinder said...

Let's propose this compromise to what's her name:

I get to have any gun and accoutrement I want, and you (what's her name) gets to STFU.

Deal?

og said...

I'm a bit disturbed that I'm not disturbed that the thought of deep fried gun-banner hide is making me hungry.

WV: Haber. We'll haber ober for lunch.

pakkinpappa said...

I'll lose bayonet lugs for suppressors but not the folding stocks, how about that for compromising? And only on future purchases, I'm not sawing them off anything I have, those are already in existence.

pakkinpappa said...

And, darn it for the whole NICS thing rendering the '68 interstate sales thing null and void, I was 20 years and 9 months old when that passed... darn it...

Firehand said...

"How 'bout this, Joan: you stop trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment and I'll stop calling you a hysterical gun bigot."

Panamared said...

It seems to me that compromise got us the IRS, the BATFE, the federal department of education, and most of what we think of as the modern day federal government. Is the next compromise to change the name of the country to The United Socialist States of America?

Anonymous said...

We already HAVE compromise in most places. _I_ get to have a gun and carry it where I wish. She wishes nothing to do with them.

See. Everyone has what they personally want. I'm not forcing her to own, learn to properly use and carry about a firearm of any kind, after all.

Wraith said...

If you start with nothing, and demand 100%, and compromise at 30%...you're 30% ahead of where you were. --Saul Alinsky

And then, of course, you demand 100% again, and compromise at 50%, and so on. This is how folks like JP managed to make such headway until we woke up.

How's this for a compromise: "You stop violating my God-given rights, and I let you live." Sounds reasonable to me...!

Newbius said...

I'm with Wraith on this one.

I am getting pretty tired of these Brady fleas, always biting at my ankles. Flicking them off only lets them come back later for another bite. Nothing but destroying them outright should be considered a victory. No compromise.

WV: "Hopest" Middle-ages hope

Desertrat said...

These creatures learned from the USSR's idea of compromise: "What's mine is mine; what's yours is subject to discussion."

Britt said...

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.

*shakes bowcaster*

Goober said...

Thank you Tam. it's about time someone made this point.

Larry said...

"Or how about free speech so long as you have a permit for that communications device?"

It's called a Radio Station Authorization, it's issued by the FCC, and you have to have one to legally operate one of those hand-held walkie talkie GMRS radios you get from Wal Mart or a ham radio set. You used to have to have one for a CB radio, too, but they have long since dropped that requirement.

The compromise is that you don't need a permit to have a printer. You're welcome.

deadcenter said...

Lawdog covered this one about 14 months ago: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

Ausprepper said...

We're staring down the barrel of this kind of "compromise" here in Australia.
We had all our decent guns nabbed when I was but a boy, and now our most "influencial" gun lobby association prints articles in their media about how "the black gun is jeopardising our public image".
We've had so called compromise rammed down our throat to the point where our politicians open debate on firearms legislation by unzippering and instructing us to assume the position.
I may be preaching to the choir, but never ever let those bastards lay a single greasy finger on your right to bear arms.

Kristopher said...

Reasonable dialog broke out. The blog owner there has shut down comments.

God, Gals, Guns, Grub said...

It's kind of like a Bacon and Eggs breakfast... the pig thinks the chicken is quite as committed to the production of the meal...

Dann in Ohio