No . more . compromise with wannabe tyrants and their quisling sycophants.
Good luck trying to enforce any such anti-constitutional legislation.
posted on 02/08/2013 6:44:19 AM PST
(Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
Really? You need only look at the article to see all of the unconstitutional laws that we are already enforcing.
posted on 02/08/2013 7:00:08 AM PST
(You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
Compromise with the gun grabbers is entirely acceptable, compromise meaning giving something up to get something else. The trouble is that the word "compromise" has been redefined to mean "partial surrender," like agreeing with a robber to only give up half the contents of your wallet, instead of all of it. That isn't compromise, that's still surrender in that one gains nothing. A proper compromise does not cede any net position. Agreeing to only half the gun grabber's demands instead of all of them is not compromise either, any more than the example with the robber. Repealing NFA '34 and the '86 ban in FOPA in exchange for accepting background (registration) checks at gun shows (but, only at gun shows) is compromise, and one that might possibly make sense to accept. If only the Republicans (1) understood what "compromise" actually means, and (2) were willing to offer real compromises in the face of pressure to grab guns against the backdrop of events like Sandy Hook.
posted on 02/08/2013 8:26:59 AM PST
(The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson