categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

why should i care what they think?

Apparently the NRA is catching some (I would not even say “a lot”) of flak over declining Our Glorious President’s invitation to sit down and figure out how best to abridge our Constitutionally-protected rights.

*shrug* Cannot say as though I care a great deal about those whiners’ objections.

Allow me to let you in on a little not-so-secret: we are winning. Constitutional carry is making a slow, steady march across the country. The number of concealed carry permits (in those states that still require them) is constantly increasing. Firearm sales made new records, broke those, and kept on going. We now have two Supreme Court decisions, and two quotes from President Barack Hussein Obama (for what little the latter are worth), confirming that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, individual right to own firearms “in common use”. More and more people are getting into the shooting sports every day, getting involved in the politics, and getting interested in protecting and preserving their personal rights.

With all that said, allow me to let you in on another not-so-secret: winners do not bother with negotiations – they do not have to. The only folks who want to negotiate are those who believe they have something to gain from the process, and given that the NRA would be sitting down across the table from the Brady Bunch, the VPC, MAIG, and Our Glorious President… well, none of those organizations or individuals have anything to offer the NRA, aside from more attacks, more subterfuge, more bigotry, and more lies.

And who the hell wants to put up with that?

So, screw ‘em. If they want to sit down and daydream about how best to abrogate law-abiding American citizens’ rights (which is all this meeting is going to boil down to), they are more than welcome to… but I see absolutely no reason why any pro-rights organization should lend credibility to the proceedings by attending. Something tells me that no matter the outcome, we will just keep on winning, and they will just keep on whining…

(And on an almost-completely unrelated note, some part of me is rather pleased at the prospect of the NRA developing something approximating a spine…)

8 comments to why should i care what they think?

  • And the Anti-Rights Cultists have said they are willing to compromise on…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    {{{Crickets chirping}}}

    Absolutely NOTHING.

    So, we are expected to support the idea of sitting down and talking about how best to take away our rights with a group of folks who repeatedly have said that they will not stop taking away our rights?

    Ain’t gonna happen and good on the NRA for saying so.

    I’ll challenge any anti-rights cultist to find an official statement from one of those groups saying they will compromise on or work to repeal an existing law.

  • Heather

    Amen, Bob.

    I’m not surprised they don’t understand the definition of the word compromise, since they also cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.

  • Dave_H

    Definition of compromise courtesy of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary
    1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things.

    Their definition is something along the lines of we give something up, they give nothing in return. Except perhaps a short interval before they demand something else. The response that comes to mind to that ends with “and the horse you rode in on.”

  • @ Bob S.: Give the man a cookie! “Compromise” consists of “GIVE and take”, and the anti-rights cultists have given nothing while hungrily taking everything they can from us.

    Time for that to stop.

    Though, I would be interested to see any results from your challenge… not that any hoplophobes would own up to it if it happened…

    @ Heather: While I think the problem runs deeper than that (specifically, the inability to differentiate truth from falsity), that does explain the vast majority of anti-rights idiocy, does it not?

    @ Dave_H: I have said it before, and I have no problems saying it again – we are already in the “middle ground”, and the anti-rights cultists are lying and dissembling through their bigoted teeth every time they try to misrepresent our current positions as our starting positions.

    When one looks at the “gun rights” debate honestly, with “shall not be infringed” at one end, and “England” on the other, the pro-rights community has alrady “compromised” far more than I would ever find acceptable. It is well-past time for us to start moving back towards respecting individual, Constitutionally-protected rights, and for us to stop allowing fear-mongering, hateful, totalitarian pricks to dictate our lives for us.

  • Patrick

    Spot on, mate.

  • Dave_H

    You will get no argument from me. I’m in 100% agreement with you.

  • Dave_H

    Oh and one more thing about their use of words. I find it somewhat ironic that they use the phrase “common sense” as the call for the restriction of individual liberty . Heh. Considering their goals, and their desire for ever increasing government authority, I suspect Thomas Paine might do a backflip or two in his grave over that.

  • @ Patrick: Thanks :).

    @ Dave_H: I would imagine the large number of firearm-owners are in agreement with me, but for the sake of appearing “reasonable”, they might not be willing to phrase it quite as I have… I, on the other hand, have no reason to be concerned over the arbitrarily-misappropriated words employed by anti-rights cultists.

    And speaking of “common sense”, I already addressed the inherent logical fallacy of that phrase, but you bring up an outstanding point regarding the use of it – I dare say Mr. Paine would have some … choice … words about the situation.