No common ground

Recently I have been seeing the anti-gun people almost begging for mercy and asking for “common ground” (see also Paul Helmke):

I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things?

Can we get together and do what’s right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won’t affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don’t actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?

What they do not seem to understand (or just a likely do not want to admit) is that any of the laws they advocate which would “prevent gun violence” are prior restraint on a specific enumerated right and have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. We can no more find common ground on this topic than we can find common ground with someone who would demand we get government approval before buying a book, dating someone of the same sex, or marrying someone of a different race. And in fact a better legal case could be made for the last two examples because they are not specifically enumerated rights.

These people are weasels that have no interest in finding common ground, playing fair or even pretending their laws “won’t affect those who are law abiding” and only affect criminal when they are in the drivers seat. They need to be, and deserve to be, politically exterminated and their leaders sent to prison.


16 thoughts on “No common ground

  1. Every time I hear the words “Common Sense” and “Reasonable People” and “Common Ground” come out of a Commies mouth, that tells me that all they are doing is setting up a scenario where they can tell the Sheeple “We tried to meet them halfway, but they kept saying No”. Same thing for being Bi-Partizan. So if you don’t agree with them, then YOU are the Extremists, and Laws must be passed against YOU. Screw them and their “Beer Summits”.

  2. My idea of common ground with these tools is the dirt I want to shovel on them their supporters, and their organizations as they all get thrown in the trench.

  3. Compromise can do funny things to freedom: When you desire the right to keep and bear arms, and the other side wants to ban them completely, then the compromise position is “well, ok, we’ll ban some arms, and we’ll create some gun-free zones.” Then, when the next round of compromise is initiated, it’s always “we’ll just ban a few more guns” and “we’ll just create a few more gun-free zones”.

    Why is it that freedom always seems lose in compromises?

  4. Over the decades we have been accomodating and resonable. But after every step they wanted more, and more, and more. After 1994 enough really was enough.

    Compromise to the antis is always one more restriction away, and it always will be.

  5. This is why I have this as my masthead quote:

    Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line – and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?
    –Jesse Helms

  6. The forces of freedom and forces of oppression are very much like a Rapist and an Armed Woman. Common ground can be found between two people working for the same thing, not between two people with completely different goals.

    The Rapist pleads for “common ground” so that he can get what he wants, a disarmed victim. But the plea for “common ground” is just an excuse for “give enough so that I can get what I want”. Because the Rapist does not want to engage in any sort of consensual activity where there can be common ground.

    When someone asks you to give up your personal security tools in the name of “common ground” it is not because there is any common ground to be had. It is because they want to victimize you.

  7. Most ironic that when an anti calls for discussion and compromise on a website that doesn’t allow comments, or heavily screens them. And in the instance where comments ARE allowed there doesn’t actually appear to be much discussion on the issue at all. Just a constant moving of goalposts and changing the subject.

    Hell has Paul Helmke in all his public appearances EVER addressed a direct question?

    They don’t want compromise, nor do they feel a need to justify their actions, they want us to submit to them. And we won’t.

  8. FYI I’ve left a few polite comments on the linked post (as well as several in her other posts) none have been approved, despite posts made AFTER I hit “Submit” being published.

    And of course she’s allowed SailorCurt to post some rebuttles, and as of yet has essentially avoided any of his questions.

    She’s calling for common ground, and squelching the voices she doesn’t agree with.

    She won’t find much cooperation from childish behavior.

  9. How about this:

    For every gun we turn over for destruction, a member of the anti-crowd undergoes sterilization. I’d gladly pony up $75 for a walmart shotgun a month for that, and the problem solves itself.

  10. Weer’d, don’t think so small. Pony up $75 a month for three Lorcins/Jennings/Brycos/Rohms a month.

    Remember, if mums the word on the condition of the firearm, go for quantity.
    Hell, some “buy-backs” have accepted airsoft replicas!

  11. Oops, sorry weer’d, I forgot that names are at the ends of posts here.
    To rephrase that; Chuck, don’t think so small…

  12. @Chuck Z,
    I’ll do you one better.. For every firearm turned in for destruction, we give a firearm to someone who wants or needs one. Those that turn them in do so because they don’t want them, know how to use them, or fear them. So let’s compromise. Let’s give them to the people who want to be able to defend themselves but can’t afford too.

    And to the blog post, alas, my common ground is that the start enforcing the laws already on the books. You know the ones. Those that call for rapists, robbers, and murders to be locked up and away from society but only manage to let those go while criminalizing those folks who don’t do anything wrong but put one recyclable bottle in the wrong bin after years of doing it correctly. Or make a felon of someone who has a shell casing in the tread of their shoe. There is my common ground.

    @Paul Helmke.. If we started putting people in jail and leaving them there for harming society (my common ground) than violence would drop pretty quickly [your common ground]. I knew we could meet in the middle.

  13. It is very clear from the words Helmke uses that he has no interest in lower crime rates. At best it can be claimed he wants fewer people killed with guns (even if the death was lawful self defense). And more likely he just wants to infringe upon our specific right to keep and bear arms as much as he can get away with.

Comments are closed.