Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 774, June 8, 2014

For all of those I hear wondering what they can do to
advance the cause of liberty: promote the idea of
amending the Constitution with a Bill of Rights penalty clause.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

What my article ''Voter ID, Booze, and Guns... the Solution to all Our Ills'' was actually about
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Last week, I wrote the above-referenced article, (also published as "Voter ID, Booze, and Guns... The Compromise Solution in The Libertarian Enterprise) to test all you precious smarmy liberals who love to claim gun rights supporters cannot compromise. And to you people, compromise is the only way to "get things done" in politics. I despise compromise, for a simple reason—you people ALWAYS want ME to compromise MY principles, and YOU never compromise one shred. But I decided to test you all. I published the article in 4 places. And in ALL of them, only 2 people acknowledged I was compromising. Both of them were on MY side of the argument, and one of them reamed me out for doing so (Hi, Mama Liberty!) The other tried to get a liberal Victim Disarmament goon to acknowledge I was trying.Not ONE of you people got it. And you made the point I've been making for years— you are NOT interested in compromise. You want surrender. Not one of you even said "Well, Neale, you are making an attempt, but it isn't enough. We need "X"." Not one. Hell, I don't think even one of you even asked me why I was compromising. I wrote an article about compromise, and how "compromise" is the foulest word to a person with principles. I explained how compromise never works, because the left ALWAYS claims to want compromise but never accepts one. And you proved that. Now, I'm not here to waste my time re-hashing what compromise actually gets us.... The HELL I'm not!

The NRA was an excellent organization when it was founded. It's goal was simple—to promote marksmanship, safety, and responsible firearms ownership, so that there would be a trained and armed group to draw on in time of need. They CLAIM to represent the gun owner, and to support the 2nd Amendment. Yet they are the ones who sponsored the NFA '34, which gave us Class Three weapons. Not a compromise, per se, it was caving in to demands to "do something" to prevent criminal violence. Back then, it was mobsters with Tommy Guns. Since they first rolled over, they have never met a gun control law they didn't weaken. NOT kill, weaken. I guarantee that the Victim Disarmament crowd has people who sit at their conference tables and plan, kinda like this. "Well, John, you KNOW we gotta get rid of these horrible Black Talon cop killer bullets." "I know, Tom, but how are we gonna get the NRA to let us have it?" "Easy. Like always, we'll demand the ban of ALL hollow-point ammunition, nylon clad ammo, and anything that might penetrate police armor. The NRA will compromise with us, "forcing" us to drop most of the ammunition, and give us what we want. Then, we can call them scum for defending the rest of those evil killy-things AND still get what we want!" And it works, all the time. Compromise sucks.

This is how we have gotten everything from GCA '38 to Connecticut, Colorado, and New York, and their anti-Constitutional laws. by compromise. EVEN while opposing these laws, lawmakers compromised away Constitutional rights. Roberts compromised to declare Obamacare Constitutional. The SCOTUS compromises on EVERY 2nd Amendment case they get. want abortion declared a Constitutional right? no problem, they can manufacture a Constitutional reason to give us Roe v Wade, and abortion becomes the law of the land. But get a case against a gun control law, and even when they find in favor of the Constitution, they never rule to make it the law of the land. Nope, they compromise, and say it has to be ruled on case by case. And we foolishly declare victory in Heller v DC, yet DC STILL violates the 2nd Amendment every damn day. Compromise sucks.

The truth is, I do NOT support a national ID card. Not for gun purchases, not for voter ID, not to buy booze. The ONLY part of that article I DO support is removing ALL vestiges of partial citizenship (different ages for different things to be "legal"), and absolutely and completely eliminating ALL traces of the draft (government slavery).

I'll be blunt. I do not support ANY government ID. Not driver's licenses, SSI numbers, draft cards, whatever. I do not support gun licenses, permits, or registration. I do not support background checks, bans on guns in public buildings, courthouses, or anywhere other than on private property, at the request of the owner. And I do not support compromising principles. And my article highlights the fact that liberals do not like compromise, either. They only support surrender—of anyone who opposes them—which they CALL compromise.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press