Given my earlier post on one of the modus operandi of the anti-rights advocates of America, the coincidence of reading a relevant tract of Atlas Shrugged
Another one of the favorite tactics of anti-rights advocates / gun-grabbers is to claim that they are interested in “negotiating” to reach a “(common sense|reasonable|rational) ‘solution’ for the ‘gun crime’ in America”. This claim is, of course, a bald-faced lie, but it is the nature of the lie that is so very interesting.
To begin with, what is a “negotiation“? It is a “mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement”, with the end result being amenable to all parties (hence the concept of “mutual”). The interesting part is how these not-really “negotiations” are approached from those looking to abridge human rights – they start out with a demand to receive something (say, background checks for all exchanges of firearms in all cases), and then “negotiate” by redemanding what they already requested, just on a smaller scale (background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows) or in a different way, or going for something wholly different, but still something they wanted.
In all cases, the anti-rights advocates get what they want, and those individuals looking to protect and preserve their human rights get nothing, and, in fact, lose something to boot. That is hardly “mutual”. Furthermore, it is hardly meeting with the commonly-accepted concept of “negotiating” to demand something while offering nothing, and then claim that you will be satisfied with a lesser value of the thing you just demanded… while still offering nothing.
Well, that is not the commonly-accepted notion of “negotiating” unless the conversation is taking place under a white flag…
As usual, though, someone else said it better than me:
“Well, don’t you see?” The loudness of homey joviality came back into Mr. Thompson’s voice, as if the hint given and received were now to be safely evaded by means of humor. “What I’ve got to offer you is your life.”
“It’s not yours to offer, Mr. Thompson,” said Galt softly.
Something about his voice made Mr. Thompson jerk to glance at him, then jerk faster to look away: Galt’s smile seemed almost gentle.
“Now,” said Galt, “do you see what I eman when I said that a zero can’t hold a mortgage over a life? It’s I who’d have to grant you that kind of mortgage – and I don’t. The removal of a threat is not a payment, the negotiation of a negative is not a reward, the withdrawl of your armed hoodlums is not an incentive, the offer not to murder me is not a value.”
“Who… who’s said anything about murdering you?”
“Who’s said anything about anything else? If you weren’t holding me here at the point of a gun, under threat of death, you wouldn’t have a chance to speak to me at all. And that is as much as your guns can accomplish. I don’t pay for the removal of threats. I don’t buy my life from anyone.”
And that is all it boils down to – anti-rights advocates are using the reduction (not even the removal) of a threat as a bargaining chip, and then offering to have the government murder you if you do not like that reduction.
Does that sound like a “negotiation” to you?
Which leads us to a very simple solution to an ingratiating anti-rights advocate offering to “negotiate” with you – ask him what he is wililng to give up in return. In exchange for considering his controlling pipedreams, request the removal of some other, onerous, oppressive law – after all, true negotiations involve a little give-and-take. If the anti-rights advocate in question waffles at your suggestion, or outright refuses it, then you know this conversation is nothing more than a totalitarian nitwit listing his demands, and likewise commanding the sanction of his victim… and I dare say I do not need to suggest reactions to that revelation.
defensive coffee usage | telling it like it is | the waiting game |
It’s not negotiation, it’s creeping incrementalism. Same as the death by a thousand cuts, being nibbled to death by ducks, or turning the heat up slowly under the frog until he’s cooked. Something sounds reasonable so you accede, then the next thing, then the next thing, until it finally reaches the point where you realize that you’re on the edge of the cliff with no-where to go.
Remember a few years back when the Anti’s great rallying cry was about how ineffective our plethora of gun laws are? Of course one sure way to know they are dishonest is how often and drastic their rallying cries change (Handgun Bans, Assault Weapons Bans, Conceal Carry Bans, Open Carry Bans, Collective Rights, Common Sense Gun Control).
But it seemed on that one little orphaned cause the laws we had sucked and did nothing….but of course they weren’t willing to actually call to REPEAL any of them. When they were asked to that little sound byte found itself under the bus pretty darn quick.
Yep, there is no negotiation, its just what they can get away with taking and what they can’t.
And of course places like England or Australia are great examples of how you can thin the heard with small changes to eventually make the big ones reality. Divide and conquer. First say you just want to limit sales at gun shows…then sales outside of gun shows, then permits, then registries, then restricted rosters, then confiscation, and THEN if we have slid that far, when they go to take the last guns away, there won’t be enough left to fight them back.
@Midwest Chick – Exactly so, and as I obliquely mentioned, that “creeping incrementalism” absolutely requires the consent and sanction of the victim… The best and effectively only way to stop it is to deny the anti-rights advocates that advantage. On an individual level, that is easy. On a national level, that has proven to be astonishingly difficult, primarily because those anti-rights advocates have pretty effectively hijacked the English language.
@Weer’d Beard – In the end, anti-rights advocates working for a “negotiation” is nothing more than another sympotom of that language hijack, as is “common sense”, and “reasonable”, and all the rest. They use the words, they know what they mean, but they use them in situations where the words are, at best, subjective, and at worst, irrelevant.
Once-Great Britain and Australia are perfect examples of that creeping incrementalism Midwest Chick mentioned, as well as a perfect example of the “let no disaster go unexploited” mentality of our current administration – almost every tightening of the totalitarianistic laws in both countries came right at the heels of a whackjob doing what whackjobs do, and now both countries are suffering for it. Unfortunately, it would seem as though our country’s politicians are approaching their failure with a “do it again, only harder” mentality, rather than the logically-accurate mentality of “RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!”
[...] to draw a line, or we’ll keep backing up. “Compromise” to a leftist means you giving them what they want and shutting up so they can brag about it. The solution is simple– don’t give them [...]