There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.
…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.
July 29, 1988
The Insatiable Thirst To Ban Guns
The Gun Rights War, page 118.
[He goes on to explain that after every infringement concession the anti-gun people immediately propose a further infringement. No concession by the proponents of freedom has ever appeased the anti-freedom forces.
Chris Knox added a note to the article and pointed out:
The single exception to the history of NRA either supporting or acquiescing to every Federal gun law now on the book is the 1994 Clinton ‘assault weapon’ ban. Bill Clinton signed that bill half a decade after this piece was originally written. ILA, under the leadership of hardliners, fought the Clinton ban with everything it had–and lost. The tactical loss turned into a strategic victory. The long-term result was the Democrats losing its lock on the House majority and the first sitting Speaker to be turned out of office in a century.
Today we are still enjoying the benefits of this “strategic victory” that occurred 16 years ago. The AWB is no more, the anti-gun people have significantly scaled back their ambitions, and still congress gives them a cold shoulder.
I found this quote particularly applicable because of a story Dave Hardy told a small group of us at lunch yesterday. He told us that during the debate for the Gun Control Act of 1968 the NRA seriously considered conceding defensive handguns and rallying around hunting rifles and shotguns.–Joe]