Tag: #NoCompromise

Hell NO! I Will Not Compromise on Second Amendment Rights! 

In an obvious attempt by the zealots at Gun Control, Inc. to characterize their gun bans as working towards solutions to gun violence, they have formed yet another fake coalition group with “gun owners” to show how reasonable they are. All of this to convince firearm owners how sensible it is to voluntarily give up more of their rights. 

The article from The Epoch Times and the link to the resulting policy page are listed below. 

Let’s keep in mind this is only the latest of MANY efforts by gun control groups to include firearm owners in their plans to restrict Second Amendment rights. By including people who are willing to sign off on more infringements, more restrictions and more ways to permanently separate law-abiding citizens from their firearms, it is supposed to add credibility to their unconstitutional efforts. At best, it’s propaganda. 

This supposedly unbiased project is called Bridge the Divide on Firearm Policy. It was led by a Tuffs University professor who has published highly prejudiced “research” for the gun control lobby for years. The Second Amendment side was led by someone who has already gained a reputation for selling out to the gun control lobby. 

In short, the “compromise” they came up with was eight proposals. 
Background checks 
Explanation: Universal background checks and state level NCIS equivalent agencies. 

Child firearm access prevention and safe storage
Explanation: Mandatory “safe storage” at home, distribution requirements for firearm dealers. 

Community violence intervention
Explanation: Funding for state level ineffective “violence intervention” and social programs. 

Dealer regulation and gun trafficking
Explanation: State level licensing, regulations and inspections of firearm dealers on top of ATF regulations.

Extreme risk protection orders, also known as red flag laws
Explanation: No due process confiscation of firearms based on an ever-growing list of people who can file. 

Firearm injury prevention education
Explanation: State developed anti-gun biased firearm risk education.

Firearm suicide prevention
Explanation: Voluntary surrendering of firearms by those who deem themselves at risk. 

Prohibiting factors for firearm purchase and possession
Explanation: New state level misdemeanor laws to permanently remove firearm rights. 

Would I support any of these? Absolutely not! Although they all contain a sham “Protection of Gun Rights” section, they are nothing more than a way to add more regulations, more fees, more red tape, more restrictions and more ways of eliminating your Second Amendment protected rights. 

Did you notice anything missing from these proposals? It’s the compromise from the gun control side. What would an actual compromise look like? It would be giving something from both sides. Something the gun control zealots demand the Second Amendment side to do, but never, EVER does themselves. 

Other than the obvious constitutional infringements being proposed, my biggest rejection of this and all the other so-called ‘collaboration’ groups are based on the flawed premise of guns being the problem and as a result, they must be further restricted. They also fail to acknowledge this is merely the current compromise list, not what they are going to demand next time when all their new gun laws inexplicably fail to do anything to reduce crime and violence. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

I want to be very clear about this. There is no such thing as a gun violence problem. What we have is a criminal problem. Criminals use violence to obtain their goals and use whatever tools they can to do it. Laws primarily targeting law abiding citizens will never have any impact on crime. 

Why do we have a crime problem? We have prosecutors who refuse to charge those who have committed crimes. We have judges who refuse to convict and impose appropriate sentences. We have legislatures who pass laws minimizing the consequences of crime, eliminating what qualifies as crime, and preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. We have governors who pardon or commute the sentences of those who have committed the most heinous crimes imaginable.  

The result is more crime, more violence and a helpless population more dependent and more willing to accept further restrictions on their liberty in exchange for the false promise of “safety” from government agencies. 

How do you deter crime? The same way it has been done for centuries.  You ensure the penalties for crime are swift, certain and severe. The three essential elements eliminated in the name of a more progressive, and useless, ideology. 

How do we get that again? We certainly don’t get it by voluntarily negotiating away our rights. We get this by being strong, independent, capable of defending ourselves… and making better choices at the ballot box. 

Bob

Epoch Times article: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/opposing-sides-of-gun-debate-pen-compromise-public-safety-policies-5995715
Bridging the Divide: https://bridgethedividenow.org

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #GunControlLies, #NoCompromise, #medium, #mewe, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

No Compromise on the Second Amendment

One of the common complaints from the anti-gun extremist left is Second Amendment advocates are never willing to compromise. They say we are “never willing to meet us halfway” or “negotiate on gun safety”. To this I respond, you are absolutely correct! We don’t now and we never will! How many of your constitutional rights are YOU willing to negotiate away? 

We often get hit with the ‘no compromise’ argument from the anti-gun extremists. We aren’t willing to have a “discussion about gun safety”. The reasons why are very simple. 

In the first place the anti-gun crowd has no idea what the term “gun safety” means. To the world at large throughout the history of firearms, gun safety has a specific meaning. It means using your firearms in a safe manner. It’s exercising the four rules of firearm safety EACH and EVERY time you handle a firearm. It’s taking responsibility for every projectile that comes out of the barrel. It’s storing your firearms responsibly for your INDIVIDUAL circumstances. It’s instilling the values of safety and responsibility in the next generation. 

Just because the anti-gun crowd co-opts a word and tries to use their own definition of it, doesn’t make it true. To them “gun safety” means more gun control laws. It means restricting the purchase, possession and use of firearms by law-abiding individuals. It means taking every opportunity to strip firearms out of hands of the law-abiding, while doing absolutely nothing to increase one of their other favorite topics, “public safety”. 

Public safety from the government point of view is something they are responsible for. They ensure the public is safe from harm from crime and other dangers. But while the government has the responsibility to do this, they have no accountability in doing it. Numerous cases of individuals suing the government for failing to protect them from harm have been dismissed by the courts ruling the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the public. 

This means you are on your own to protect yourself and your family. Fortunately, the Second Amendment is there to protect your natural right to self-defense. 

At the same time, the government, and more specifically the anti-gun extremists running it, want to eliminate your ability to protect yourself. By restricting your ability to carry and use firearms, they enforce the government’s monopoly on protecting the public, even though they have zero constitutional duty to do so. 

When the anti-gun extremists talk about “public safety”, all they are doing is trying to maintain the government as the sole protector of the peace and safety, even as they defund and dismantle the ability of law enforcement to act. When your only option for safety comes from the government, then you will support progressively more restrictions on your own liberty in exchange for a little bit of safety. 

As far as having a discussion, negotiating or meeting them halfway, when is the last time your ever heard of the anti-gun extremists being willing to give up any form of gun control? And no, agreeing not to advance a new gun control ban on “X” this year is not a negotiating point, it’s just postponing the inevitable. 

For them, discussing and negotiating means more gun control, period. If you ask them to give up something, they’ll whip out all the so-called “research” they’ve conducted to prove what they have been pushing for. You know the ones created, financed and conducted with a specific goal in mind which come to the inescapable conclusion that more gun control is the only way to increase public safety. They’ll even have all the buzz words to go along with it like data driven, common sense, empowering safety, keep guns out of the wrong hands, and of course ‘think of the children!’. In the end, they won’t give up a damn thing. 

An actual negotiation would look something like this. 

We’ll give you nationwide conceal carry reciprocity in exchange for a nationwide three-day waiting period. 
We’ll take suppressors off the NFA (National Firearms Act) list for a ban on carrying firearms in state and federal government buildings. 
We’ll get rid of red flag laws if you fully fund the staffing and training in the mental health commitment laws currently available in all 50 states. 

It’s not that I would support negotiating away any limitations self-defense; these are just examples of what a negotiation might look like. 

Would the anti-gun extremists ever truly negotiate by rolling back a gun control law without being forced by the courts to do so? No, because they only want Second Amendment advocates to negotiate in the interest of their definition of public safety. What they want law-abiding firearm owners to do is voluntarily give up more and more of their Second Amendment protected rights until nothing is left. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

For me, I can proudly say I would never compromise on Second Amendment protected rights, for myself or for future generations. As much as the anti-gun extremists want to redefine words for their own needs, the last three words of the Second Amendment seem pretty damn clear – “shall not be infringed”.

No compromise, no negotiation, no meeting halfway and no watering down our rights. Stop lying to the people and let them protect themselves and their families as is their right. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NoCompromise, #NoNegotiation, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com