Draw the Line in the Sand

Recent tragedies, where a nutjob killed other people and happened to be using firearms, have left some gun owners feeling guilty.  It's left some folks thinking maybe we should "compromise" with the anti-gunners or risk losing everything.

Such a course of action is a serious mistake.

For starters, while I feel grief for those killed by said nutjobs, I feel no guilt over their deaths.  I had nothing to do with killing them.  I did not aim a weapon and pull the trigger.  My weapons were not involved.  No gun owner should feel guilt for the actions of another human being unless said gun owner was aiding and abetting a nutjob.

Second, let's examine what "compromise" really means.  When two parties compromise, both gain something, just not as much as each desired.  When the anti-gunners and guilt-ridden gun owners discuss compromise, what they're talking about is yielding on one side and not the other.  To put it more clearly, the anti-gunners consider it "compromise" to demand we give up gun rights or specific guns and for us to gain nothing.  I wrote to Senator Michael Bennet, Senator of Colorado.  He replied to me that he was considering accepting the ban of lists of specific firearms.  That is not a compromise, it's surrender.

Third, let's look at what's being proposed logically.  Banning "assault weapons" is meaningless from both a mechanical and legal perspective.  That's why Feinstein is compiling a list of 120 specific weapons.  To write legislation to restrict weapons truly requires a consistent, mechanical definition that can be applied to each firearm.  Otherwise, someone desiring to ban said weapons would find that the same guns can be manufactured without the cosmetic components, such as muzzle brakes and bayonet lugs.  Such modifications took place to meet the requirements of the old Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.  Such an individual who wanted to truly ban weapons would need to describe the gun in such a way as to specify semi-auto actions as well as magazine or weapon capacity limits.  The end result is that many firearms that the public sees as useful only for hunting would be banned.  And if one were to apply the litmus that so many politicians are: "We don't need weapons that belong on the battlefield in the hands of civilians," then the logical conclusion is that pump-action shotguns and semi-auto handguns need banning as well.  End game: Nearly all firearms would be banned since civilians don't "need" to have them.  In years past, politicians like President Obama have made statements that civilians should not have the right to lethal self defense.  Do the math folks.

What gun owners, their representative organizations like the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association, and pro gun politicians need to remember is that no "compromise" can be reached on our rights.  What the anti-gunners want offers no improvement of our side, only loss.  It's totally one-sided, against us. 

No surrender!  No compromise!  Draw the line in the sand!