Quote of the day—Stuart Rothenberg

But the devil is in the details. You don’t have a lot of people feeling particularly pressured to do anything.

In the end, however, gun control advocates need to get something, he says, and will have to cooperate with the NRA to do so.

The political reality is that the NRA, surprisingly, didn’t give an inch. Now the other side needs to figure out a way to negotiate.

Stuart Rothenberg
April 3, 2013
Gun Control Prospects Recede As Politics Swamp Momentum
[Why should it be surprising the NRA didn’t give an inch? If the propose laws were severe restrictions on the right to attend the church of your choice or the right to read the books you wanted do you think the ACLU would give an inch?

The right to keep and bear arms is no different. Over a hundred million people were murdered or killed in wars in the 20th Century by people who read and took to heart the works of Karl Marx. And I expect there will be millions more death in the conflict over communism in this century. Yet I have never once heard of anyone advocating for the banning of his books. 20 kids murdered by a nut case with a gun is a huge tragedy but millions of kids murdered by leftist monsters is just a number.

I want the people at large to own guns so the risk of genocide and mass murder due to advocates of communism or any other totalitarian government is pushed to near zero. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to bear arms are a package deal. And there is nothing to negotiate.—Joe]

14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Stuart Rothenberg

  1. The reason the NRA not giving an inch is surprising is they have a record of if not bending over, at least leaning forward for piecemeal antigun legislation. The NRA standing ground is a good thing to see, I just wish it would have been visible 50 years ago.

  2. I haven’t done enough reading of my own, but people like Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman have long argued that the NRA has an extensive history of accommodation with the gun ban crowd. Background checks may be an example, or the 1968 law.
    Some NRA writings give me a definite impression that they tend to view gun rights as something connected to hunting, which of course is complete nonsense.

    • You do know they’ve gotten the message and talk about self defense quite often, right?

  3. Maybe we should just ban GOVERNMENTS (or at least their employees and supporters) from reading or learning about or supporting the works of Marx, et al, sort of like they want to restrict only PRIVATE ownership of guns. That might balance things a bit, right?

  4. They need to understand 2 things.

    #1: The otherside has no idea what compromise is. Their idea of compromise is they get everything they want and we STFU and take it.

    #2: Even if they did know what compromise is, they don’t understand the reality of what it would mean. Compromise is not the middle ground between where we are and where they want us to be. Compromise is the middle ground between where we want to be and where they want to be. If they want compromise they better be willing to come to the table and actually give me something instead of assuming I’ll go along with them allowing me to keep most of what I already have.

    You knuckleheads want to talk about more and better background checks, fine, lets talk about repealing the Hughes amendment along with it, or maybe pulling suppressors and SBR/SBS off the NFA. What you don’t like those ideas? Well then go pound sand.

    • I don’t entirely agree – since they have zero understanding of firearms use, operation, or design, they come up with the most idiotic “compromises”. Ban 15 round mags, but “allow” us to keep 10 round mags (with 7 rounds in them, for NY). Keep semi-autos without a pistol grip, but ban those with one. But I do agree that their concept of “compromise” always, always, means that we give something up and they don’t give anything in return. Want universal background checks? Sure – eliminate the interstate commerce clauses in the GCA, so a lawful buyer can purchase in any state.

      How about lifting the manufacturing ban on full-autos? How about extending the list of Curio & Relics to include M-14s? There are a ton of compromise items that the antis could dangle as carrots to get what they want, if they 1.) Had any understanding of the current laws and how they affect firearms ownership. 2.) Actually had a spirit of compromise in mind. 3.) Didn’t actually have an intent to ban ’em all, Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in.

    • I do not believe in compromise. I believe in the 2A and that it says what it means. I want all of these insane, silly, ineffective, and unconstitutional laws repealed.

      I have not seen one law that has both improved our safety and also not been an infringement. Choosing between our current crop of politicians and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is no contest.

      Oh yeah, and they can still go pound sound as a freebie for being despots previously. Payback!

      • I don’t disagree. My point was not that I want compromise but that even IF I did, it doesn’t really exist. There’s no point or benefit in negotiating with people who start out doing it from a position of bad faith.

        Really we need to be doing the exact same thing. Start out from the assumption that compromise means we get whatever we want and they STFU and take it. Assume the middle ground is between where we are now and where we want to be and let them hang on by their fingernails…

  5. We also need to keep in mind that the NRA of today is NOT the NRA of 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. Most of those Guys who went into the Back Room and smoked the Cigars are Retired or Dead.

    Even Wayne seems to have gotten the message that if he tries some Shenanigans on “Compromise,” his days are numbered.

    Sure the Modern DemaCommie Party wants “Compromise.” But they want something along the lines of the Missouri Compromise of the 1800’s, so they can keep pushing Slavery down the Republics Throat.

    And I’m hoping that it will soon be 1861, and we can get started on cleaning up the Republic.

    • God, no. A country of 23 million, suffering 600,000 casualties? As unlikely as it seems, I hope they come to their senses — or the people do and boot them out by the vote — before that comes to pass.

      Our jobs are to stand between our families and war’s desolation, not to invite that desolation into our homes.

  6. Anyone who has ever actually negotiated with Communists knows there are three indispensible parts to negotiating like a Communist.
    1. They agree to less than what they want.
    2. What they get is given immediately, while what they give will be given at a later date.
    3. Before that later date arrives, some crisis erupts and negotiations are reopened so a new balance can be reached, with something more given to them, and what they give in return reduced, and/or with delivery pushed to a later date.

    And I hope Bubblehead Les was speaking metaphorically about soon being 1861, as a civil war is like calling the artillery down on one’s own position because the gooks are inside the wire, and without the risk of self-annihilation, there is zero chance of stopping the gooks.

    And as Defens says, if they want compromise, show it. No new restrictions without removing substantial old restrictions. Although considering how quickly universal mandatory background checks will devolve into registration, and any equipment-based restrictions are signs of magical thinking, I don’t know what they could bring to the table to get approval for gun registration.
    Not in this country, yet, anyway.

  7. As for the past, the members and the officers and board members of the NRA have learned what compromise with the anti liberty crowd gets them. There’s that picture going around of the Black Panthers with loaded shotguns and rifles on the steps of the California State Capital in Sacramento with the story that the NRA in 1968 supported disarming blacks who “only wanted to protect their homes.” which is an especially poisonous way of recasting the Black Panther protests calling for armed revolution.

  8. The NRA *may* have gotten the message that compromise isn’t acceptable. However, the fight is still young. They bear close watching.

  9. Of course it was surprising that the NRA did not give ground. It has become their coin of trade to wimp out, if this had happened in 1968 we would be far better off today.

Comments are closed.