I don't know whether the American Hunters & Shooters Association is a good organization or a bad one.The point, Mr. Eblen, is that it's a synthetic one. Bogus. Astroturf all the way. It doesn't exist outside of a website and some donations from the political-minded on the left. It's a Q-Ship. A false flag operation. Disinformation. A Potemkin village. Imaginary as the day is long. The mailing list of their actual non-paid members would fit on the back of a postage stamp with room to spare.
Heck, you say you're all for a good compromise organization, and then you body slam the NRA for being hard-line and "no-compromise". Do you realize how clueless that makes you look?
(H/T to Unc.)
If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it.
ReplyDeleteThat will be a remarkably interesting day.
He's not missing the point. He's toeing the line.
ReplyDelete-SayUncle
"...eventually somebody's going to do it."
ReplyDeleteMolon Labe. (That's Greek for "Bring it on!")
And the fact that the disarmament types try to do their foul deeds by stealth using conflict-averse, passive-aggressive tactics sorta tells its own tale, now, donnit?
M
They always say that compromise is needed, but they miss the point of compromise.
ReplyDeleteCompromise is where each side gives a little, each side gets a little.
So why do their compromises seem to consist of the pro-gun side always giving ground, never gaining, while the anti-gunners are given their complete wishlists? They treat our current patchwork of insane laws as the ceiling for freedom and expect us to give up more, usually with the only benefit being a promise that they won't try to ban break action shotguns or bolt action rifles... for now. There's never any admittance that bans on "assault weapons" were wrongheaded attacks on purely cosmetic features or that strict gun control has never created anything but a playground for criminals and tyranny.
They also never seem to be interested in similar "compromise" on other rights. How about they agree that full freedom of speech can be dangerous and only those who pass background checks and psychological evaluations can be given internet connections and websites? Freedom of religion can be troublesome, so how about you can only worship in one of a few mainline denominations, and none of the more "extreme" religions who actually believes in their religious texts? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment isn't necessary if you have nothing to fear, now is it?
But alas, they never bring logic and thought to the gun control debate, lest they realize that they've been on the wrong side the whole time.
They also never seem to be interested in similar "compromise" on other rights. How about they agree that full freedom of speech can be dangerous and only those who pass background checks and psychological evaluations can be given internet connections and websites?
ReplyDeleteWell, given that they've been trying mightily to pathologize conservatism since about 1950 or so, I can say only "Wait."
"Intelligent compromises" should start with enforcement of existing laws. This commonsense approach would make communities far more safer than more restrictions on firearms ownership by those who aren't robbing c-stores and shooting pregnant bank tellers with impunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Challenging the antis to pry firearms from our cold dead hands is a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteWe should make their hands cold and dead before they get the chance.
The best response to a a federal ninja raid is to have them raid an empty house only to find a taunting letter and a long cold paper trail.
I believe every home in America should posess at least one fully automatic weapon with a caliber beginning wiht a 5 or larger. I'm willing to compromise, but only down to a 3. That's where the bargaining should begin.
ReplyDeleteBe reasonable, Og. Not everyone wants one of those.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't a light artillery piece be an acceptable substitute?
"They won't compromise" is really an ad hominem. It is a more passive aggressive way of calling us "pricks who won't bend over"*.
ReplyDelete*Or maybe just "uncompromising". Either way.
"Wouldn't a light artillery piece be an acceptable substitute?"
ReplyDeleteAs a veteran Field Artilleryman, I can assure you that even light artillery pieces entail more maintenance than you wish to be involved in. Man portable AT rockets give more bang for the buck..... and IEDs have proven themselves to be cost effective against the the mightiest military force the world has ever known.......
and "Molon Labe" is more accurately translated as "You come, taking!".
"and "Molon Labe" is more accurately translated as "You come, taking!"."
ReplyDeleteAnd is usually translated as "come and try to take them"
If you want to be all linguistically particular about it, "Molon Labe" means "(First you have to) come, (then you can)take."
ReplyDeleteAncient Greek participle order is hypotactic, and their participles are a bit more varied than English ones.