Wednesday, August 17, 2016

"Compromise": I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Over at Bearing Arms, Jenn Jacques has a post up about "compromise" with Democrats on "gun control".

It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:
So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.

Do that, then we’ll talk.
[emphasis in original]
While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."

I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).

However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.

"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"

If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.

Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.

Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.


  1. Thank you, I mostly agree. I would go further.

    Actually the issue is that we are not required to compromise on a God-given right of self defense as recognized (not granted) in the Second Amendment.

    They have NO moral authority to dictate to any of us how we choose to defend ourselves so long as the justification for lethal force is there. If I used my bow or a knife or an elbow that causes the sad demise of an assailant, it is immaterial so long as use of lethal force was justified.

    So, no more compromises. We need to be talking about the restoration of our Second Amendment rights that have been stolen by evil politicians and idiotic judges.

    1. Oh, I'm with you on 2A restoration. (Also, don't forget about evil judges and idiotic politicians. ;) ) I'd love to see several, if not most or all, of the existing gun laws repealed. I'd love to deal with the anti-gun crowd using their definition of "compromise" - we'll let them keep some of the laws instead of repealing all of them ... for now. (We'll be back for the rest later.)

      But, specifically addressing Jenn's (and by extension, Bearing Arms') definition of "compromise".... Using ["War on Guns" blogger] David Codrea's words, to "enforce existing Intolerable Acts" is not, and should never be considered, a "compromise" on gun laws. Rather, it is and always has been an unconstitutional and Intolerable Act.

    2. Here, here!

      I heartily agree.

      The Intolerable Acts were part of the stew that came to a boil in the colonies. I hope they do not forget what the lesson was when gun confiscation was tried by the King back then.