Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 775, June 15, 2014

The very sort of evil that our fathers and
grandfathers fought and bled and died to stop is
fully in control of the United States Government.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Re: "Voter ID, Booze, and Guns... the Compromise Solution", and "What my article 'Voter ID, Booze, and Guns... the Solution to all Our Ills" was actually about" (both by Neale Osborn), and "Letter from Jeff Colonnesi with reply from Neale Osborn"

I'm looking at compromise as a stepping stone and as something to convince those who are not already aligned with the victim disarmament crowd (they are already a lost cause). By offering a compromise that appears reasonable (or even less than reasonable to the average person), we appear to be willing to work with the other side. For too long the other side has come in with a compromise—I know we see them as demands, but the general public views "they ban X and let us keep Y" as a compromise—and appeared rational. Before, our side said "NO!" and lost ground time and again. At best, our side agreed to part of what they wanted and minimzed damage.

That changed in the 80's. When we began to push back against the abuses from the BATF we offered a compromise. We didn't have the cloute or support to repeal the 1968 GCA. But we were were able to force through the 1986 FOPA. It wasn't great (hell, it wasn't even that good), and we had to swallow a poison pill to get it through, but it was the first incremental sucess in 50 years.

Since then, we have offered compromises up and suddenly began winning. Did we "want" concealed carry permits? No, we wanted constitutional carry. But we asked for "shall issue" laws. Now, a scant 27 years after Florida passed the first "shall issue" law, average people can carry pistols for defense in 41 out of 50 states. Where in 1987 only Vermont had constitutional carry, now there are 3 (argueably 4) states that do. Constitutional carry proposals are being fought for (with support) in a number of states. Open carry, something that in most states would get you arrested in 1987, is now so common in the news that most people are not suprised to see it. Just a couple years ago open carry activists showed up at a presidential speech and that was done was corden them away from the president (any guesses what they would have done anytime from 1968 - 1987?).

In my home state of Michigan, we went from local bans on open carry to very few restrictions on open carry. From complete bans on ownership of machineguns, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors & DDs to allowing at least the first 4 with the federal registration (I'm not sure abut DDs). From "may issue" that was in fact "no issue without proof of need" to "shall issue" for concealed carry licenses (CPL). From pre-purchase pistol permits that sometimes took months and bringing the gun to the police to allow "inspection' and registration (and allowing them to take it as long as they wanted) to pre purchase permits only for private sales without a CPL (not needed for sales from an FFL) and just dropping off paperwork for registration. We aren't there yet—we still have a long way to go, but the difference is so vast that someone involved in gun rights / defensive carry who jumped from 1987 to now would have a hard time recognising the state.

We didn't get in the pickel we were in in 1968 - 1994 (by my estimate marking the begining and end of the gun control crowds zenith) overnight. It took 60 - 70 years from when there were no federal laws and vertually no local laws until the GCA 1968 was passed. It may take till the 2060s to bring us back.

At some point we will reach the stage where the "compromise" we offer is "wipe the rest of the gun laws off the books, and we'll let you avoid prison for your part in passing them in the first place". Long before then we will either force the NRA to our way of thinking—or abandon it in favor of an organization that does believe in unfettered RKBA.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Jeff Colonnesi

To which Neale Osborn replied:

Jeff—many excellent points in this missive. Please understand that I am taking my methods directly from the Democrat's Anti-Constitutional playlist. I demand the moon, and accept what is offered (for now) then immediately demand the moon AND the stars. My problem is simple. THEY demand we ignore the highest law of the land, and surrender our rights (to a greater or lesser extent) and call that compromise. I have no problem if the compromisers point to me and people like me and say "Make a deal with ME, or else Neale's gonna rip you a new one and give you nothing."

I'm thrilled we now have 3-4 Constitutional Carry states. Only 46-7 to go. I'm not sure I'm happy about "Must Issue" or "Shall Issue" states selling us permission to exercise our rights, but I do see your point, and consider it a marginal victory. Forcing Illinois to become the 50th state to have provisions for some form of concealed carry may be a smack in the face of the liberal Illinois government and specifically, of Chicago thug politicians, but in the long run, it is irrelevant that they are forced to sell people applications for permission to exercise a Constitutional right, when they don't ever actually GRANT any of them. Or allow gun shops to open to sell the guns necessary to exercise said right.

You are correct that all of these things can be considered a step in the right direction. But until we figure out a way to sue the Supreme Court for failure to uphold the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment, what good does licenses (that the government can modify, restrict, deny, or ignore at whim) actually do to our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? I'm supposed to cheer because every state now has some mechanism to purchase permission to engage in a Constitutional right? That's a victory? In a way, I guess it is, but I'm not that interested in half (hell, 1/10th) of a victory. I like the sentiment, but I doubt I will see the success we both want-

At some point we will reach the stage where the "compromise" we offer is "wipe the rest of the gun laws off the books, and we'll let you avoid prison for your part in passing them in the first place". Long before then we will either force the NRA to our way of thinking—or abandon it in favor of an organization that does believe in unfettered RKBA.

I hope that will be the final compromise, even though I still detest ANY compromise of our rights—ANY of our rights.

Thanks for the discourse,

Neale Osborn

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Regarding: A generation is growing up with limited access to firearms and the delusion that putting up "no guns" signs will protect them. In some cases, this generation is arriving in adulthood (physically, though not intellectually) with the belief that self-defense is actually wrong.

To my knowledge there is no right granted by the Constitution, no natural born G-d given rwhich the Constitution promises the government will not violate, or any right promised by any system of morality guaranteeing that people have the right to walk around being unharvested shmoos. On the contrary, is it not written, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." Commentators of all faiths, even the most allegedly pacifistic, advise this.

Secondly, the website cited refers to flak the current Miss USA got for suggesting that women learn self defense. Many so called feminists suggested that women should not be taught self defense, but rather that men be taught not to rape. As I more or less commented on a post to Larry Correia's Facebook page: "We do teach men not to rape. some guys fail the course. They need to be given the grade of 40 or 38 they earn."

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Big Head Press