Found on Firearms Talk forums
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/ ... se-106296/


Came across this reading the comments on a CNN article written by some woman who runs moms hate guns or whatever it's called. Something struck me about how accurate and spot on it was. A perfect response next time one of your Facebook "friends" talks about compromise.

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control
camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN
RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you
come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by
asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to
keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National
Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my
cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this
compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I
already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of
1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of
my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and
here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the
Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what
has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have
already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act
(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement
(nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM).
Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act
(sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I
lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what
was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with
most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being
"reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise"
as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic
Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel
of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I
owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy
a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without
.Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose
in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms
anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no
restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've
got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving
firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and
how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY
DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the
importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968
"compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly
deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or
convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your
side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter
is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give
up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and
giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now
wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake
now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always
will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise".

Saw that in an image file:

Great analogy!

Think of it this way.

Government estimates show there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US.

Let's just use the anti-gun 30,000 deaths annually, (although that includes suicides, well use it for their sake.)

Then let's assume that every death was caused by a separate gun, (we know this is not the case, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

This means that out of 300,000,000 guns in the US, only 0.01% of them lead to a death.

That means that 99.99% of all the guns in the US have killed NOBODY.

The idea that "compromise" is a great approach to anything relating to individual rights, or the laws of the land is crazy. I think everything should be evaluated on its merits.

I've never been arrested. Never committed of a crime. I've got a CPL, a C&R FFL. I get a regular NCIC check from my public safety volunteer work.
I think I'm clearly not a threat to anyone. So why shouldn't I be able to own a full-auto MG? Why do I even have to go through all the extra NFA steps for a suppressor? A crazy with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver is more of a threat than I would be with a machine gun or a suppressor.

Anzac, when I read the analogy I thought of you.

And your ilk.

You're clearly dealing with cognitive dissonance.

I've never said my support of UBCs was a compromise - my support of UBCs is because I'd like fewer felons to have access to firearms.
Like I said, everything should stand on its merits, whether it is a UBC or a repeal of parts of the NFA. If you disagree with my views on the merits of UBC, fine. But don't dare suggest my support is part of some kind of compromise viewpoint.

you can keep buying guns, even privately, you just have to go through this background check.

i'm sorry what the fuck were you saying?

Nailed it with Cognitive Dissonance. Bullseye.

If you'd like fewer felons to have access to firearms why back something as useless as UBC's? The only way to keep felons from having access to firearms is to keep them locked up, the felons that is. If they're behind bars they can't steal guns, get them through a straw purchase or a private sale. I've always supported tagging for prohibited persons, tattooing perhaps. At the very least a prohibited person should have a box checked on their ID, touchyfeely types that don't like guns could ask for the box to be checked on theirs too so the felons wouldn't feel so bad. Something such as this would fit much better with the American policy of "innocent until proven guilty". Those that don't have the box checked can buy as they please.
Why not redirect your efforts to something that would actually help in achieving your stated goal?

Sent from my SGH-T779 using Tapatalk

Fucking hell . . . ANZAC posted in here and AGREED with the majority, and y'all still can't stay on topic.

Here's a great statement:



Don't waste your time trying to convince ANZAC he's wrong on 594. Spend your time fighting 594 instead.

the more we talk about it the more we can speak intelligently. confronting 594 supporters at every opportunity is fighting 594. Dominate the discussion, own the facts, expose the half-truths, the lies etc.

Here is a compromise. I'll agree to UBC as long as the check can be as simple as a card/permit I can purchase and is checked on purchase. The card would have to be accepted nation wide, reasonably priced, and also grant me conceal carry rights in all 50 states so I don't have to consult an attorney if I travel across the country with a firearm. And no registration of the firearms.