The only compromise I’d be a fan of; you don’t have a gun and we don’t send you to jail.
September 3, 2017
Comment to Would you accept this Gun Rights / Gun Control compromise?
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
My answer to the hoplophobes and their “compromise” is the same answer I have for the mohammedians.
I will not submit.
So, you believe that you’re safe if someone doesn’t have a gun?
I can just imagine “negotiations” with this person:
TrampsLikeUs: Here’s my starting position: you don’t have a gun, and we send you to jail for crimethink.
AuricTech: Here’s *my* starting position: I have whatever firearms I damn well please, and I cordially invite you to autofornicate. I suspect that our respective positions leave little room for compromise.
TLU: “The only compromise I’d be a fan of; you don’t have a gun and we don’t send you to jail.”
AT: Note that I *do* have firearms. And ammunition. And practice in combining the two for salutary effect on anyone who might attempt to alter those facts [ETA: by force]. You feeling froggy enough to jump? Your move.
The compromise that I’m more aligned with would be more like:
TLU – you don’t have guns, and “we” dont’ send you to jail.
Defens – how about, you don’t be telling me what to do, at force of arms, and I don’t shoot you down where you stand.
Stealing that. Without attribution. Just try and stop me.
The phrase I picked up from a Brit website was “Go forth and multiply with yourself”.
I suppose you could make that even more obscure: “go forth and square”.
i’ll keep my gun, he can have his angst. peckerhead.
“We”? I doubt Toodles will volunteer as #1 on the stack kicking in my front door.
It’s always “WE” for Progressives, meaning, “other people with guns (not me)”.
“…you don’t have a gun and people with guns, other than me, don’t send you to jail.”
“…if you have a gun, then other people with guns will send you to jail (while I stand on the sidelines, pretending I had nothing to do with it, and wash my hands).”
Wouldn’t it be easier, though, to round up the unarmed people and send them to jail? Of course it would, and that’s the point of the second amendment. Progressives would love being able to round up any group they want, and send them to jail. They’ve made that very clear. AGW “deniers” come to mind, and there have been other groups they’ve already identified similarly. If they were ever to get their wet dream of total citizen disarmament (their own people of course would be heavily armed) they’d get right to the round-ups and purges. Who’d stop them, after all?
The only compromise I’d be a fan of: you’re not required to have a gun and we don’t send you to jail for failure to be armed.
He just had a couple of words missing. /sarc
On the contrary, I submit that this commenter would prefer that we keep our guns (so that they can send us to jail).
I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to work.
If a well-regulated (equipped and functioning regularly according to purpose) militia (“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason) is necessary to the security of a free state, then conversely, to MISregulate (render unsuitable for the purpose) the militia (the whole of The People and every individual that separately comprise it) is to act against the security of a free state, or ensure the security of an UN-free state.
I could see a strong argument that either of those interpretations would be considered an individual act of levying war against the people that hope to be secure in that free state.
Another observation is that “free state” could be read as a synonym of “free condition”.
TrampsLikeUs, I do have a gun and so you can’t send me to jail.
That’s how the real world works. Pray I do not alter the terms further at your expense.