Quote of the day–Dave Workman

Why is it that when the gun prohibitionist lobby invites gun owners to sit down and negotiate, they never bring anything to the table other than expectations that gun owners will give up some of their rights?

Dave Workman
December 29, 2009
What is ‘common-sense’ firearm legislation?
[We should just work toward a middle ground.–Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Dave Workman

  1. To quote Tevye (from Fiddler on the Roof):
    “On the other hand..
    ..There is NO other hand!”

  2. The simple answer to his question? An anti-rights advocate’s idea of “negotation” is “not getting exactly what he wants right the frak now“.

  3. Why? Simple; it’s almost always worked in the past. We have to give them that much credit—they have an effective strategy and so long as their opponents don’t tack, there’s no obvious reason for the prohibitionists to change.

    Now, we the rights advocates should be the ones inviting them to come to the table and negotiate. Let the prohibitionists show us their virtue and magnanimity by giving ground at each and every conversation. I’ll start the negotiations from the position that we eliminate all weapon laws and disband the BATFE. Lets talk, and if the prohibitionists are at all reasonable, we’ll meet half way. We’ll eliminate only half of all weapon laws and reduce the BATFE by 50%. Next month we’ll talk again, I’ll have the same starting position, and we’ll meet half way again. Repeat. Each time we meet them half way, we’ll be showing our tolerance for other people’s views and our reasonableness. The prohibitionists will be allowed to likewise show their reasonableness by falling all over themselves to meet us half way at every opportunity, else they be branded as narrow-minded, uncooperative extremists (and probably dangerous) and cut out of the conversation.

    Just don’t let any Republicans into the conversation, ’cause all they know how to do is give ground and then whine for money.

  4. Lyle certainly understands the game. Unfortunately we don’t seem to understand that we must play the rules of lowest common denominator if we are to win. The tactic Lyle describes is exactly how the game has been played to now. Except we were the ones “compromising” (read icrementally surrendering). It is now time to stand immovable and if the other side refuses to participate as we should have done, then we can do whatever we must without guilt.

  5. Exactly the same tactic that’s been played by SocDemLib Kongress Kritters (for how long now?). “In the spirit of bi-partisanship, we invite our brethren across the aisle to extend the hand of compromise. . . ”

    Except that there never is any compromise. It’s always the Left’s way, or no way (with much whining about the meanie conservative Repubs).

Comments are closed.