...ho ho ho...
Sorry for the light blogging...I've been spread pretty thin over the last couple of weeks. In fact, as I sit here typing on my laptop, I can hear the phone ringing off the hook in my office. If you're one of hte people calling, I'll get back to you...honest...no, really...in just a minute...
I wanted to make a couple of points on my previous post on Richard Feldman. My first point is on the word "compromise." If you remember the old movie (and subsequent television series) The Paper Chase back in the 1970s, you might recall the sonorous voice of law professor Charles W. Kingsfield opening statement: "Contracts are the basis of all civilization..."
Setting aside the fact that I live with a contract attorney, I've come to believe that Professor Kingsfield was right...contracts — legal, social, personal — are part of the bedrock of our culture. Now let's talk about the word "compromise," which Professor Kingsfield said was how we get to "contracts." If I remember correctly, the good professor defined compromise as, "Side A gives something; Side B gives something and there is a meeting of the minds."
Now, let me give you Richard Feldman's and the antigun lobby's definition of "compromise:" "Side A gives something; Side B says that's a really good start, so what are you going to give us next?"
The modern antigun movement has been amazingly consistent since Pete Shield outlined the goals of confiscation back in the 1960s — get what it can get and ask for more. Every so-called "compromise" has resulted in us giving ground while the antigun movement asked for more more more. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been a "compromise" as described by Professor Kingsfield...instead, we give ground and the antigunners ask for, or take, more.
That is because the antigun forces in this country — and there are not and never were enough of them to make up a "movement" despite the complicity of the MSM — have never changed their ultimate goal...the complete disarming of the American people.
Think about it. The reason they don't compromise is that they believe in the end they will triumph.
For all those people who are critical of the NRA, tell me what is the correct response when one side absolutely will not compromise?
I suggest that the only sane path in that situation is for Side A to also refuse to compromise. Unilateral actions, like those suggested by Feldman and the "third way" crowd (which is indeed a very small crowd, consisting apparently of Feldman and his right hand), simply lead to Side B asking for more.
In fact, we are winning. Brady's and the VPC's budget is in the toilet...they can't raise money because their time has past. Politicans are terrified of the words "gun control," lest they end up shoveling chicken feces rather than raiding the public coffers. The Supreme Court is very likely to ratify the standard, individual interpretation of the Second Amendment next year, through gun ban laws in Washigton D.C., New York City and Chicago out with the garbage. The Concealed carry movement continues to grow nationally.
Do I have problems with the NRA? Of course, and I have never been shy in making those problems known to the NRA honchos. I also acknowledge the NRA is our primary weapons system in fighting antigun initiatives. Why would we want to cripple our primary weapon???