mzmadmike (mzmadmike) wrote,

THIS Is What A "No Compromise" Position Looks Like.

We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There are now proposals that we "Compromise" on any weapon more advanced than the 1870s.
I am unwilling to compromise. I have a right to own a nuke and a Minuteman III.
Regardless of how my friends may perceive me, it means one, simple thing:  My position cannot be assailed or deconstructed.  "Keep and bear arms" = "Own and carry weapons."  I don't see an "Except what some people don't like" in there, anymore than I do in the First Amendment.
I demand a right to antimatter once its containment is developed, too.
As far as any small arms--they are so ridiculously easy to make, I regard any firearm law as a complete waste of time and resources.  There are laws against murder.  Murder is wrong whether its done with a kitchen knife, ball bat, gun, car, poison or explosive.
Most of the people I know in code enforcement would rather be chasing real criminals.  I propose to enable them.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 11 comments