Understanding Genuine Compromise in Gun Control

There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding regarding what constitutes a 'moderate compromise' on gun control. Advocates for stricter gun control measures often portray their stance as a reasonable middle ground, when in fact, it’s more of a one-sided concession from law-abiding gun owners. A 'compromise' should involve mutual concessions, but here's the reality: concessions are repeatedly made by gun owners without any corresponding concessions from advocates. This is not compromise; it leaves only a hollow semblance of what the term truly means.

What Constitutes a Moderate Compromise?

It’s important to highlight that we already have a moderate compromise on gun control. The existing laws draw the line at automatic weapons, destructive devices, and 'dangerous or unusual' weapons. Additionally, convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms. Any extension beyond these points infringes on the Second Amendment rights and the individual right to own a firearm with a customary and historic use.

Enforcing Existing Laws

First and foremost, we must enforce the actual laws that already exist. The Congressional Militia Act of 1797 stipulates that every able-bodied male citizen between 18 and 45 years of age MUST possess a military long-arm. In modern times, this relates to possessing an M-16 or M-4. This law is not up for negotiation or interpretation; it is the law as written. Refusing to comply is not an option.

Individuals who choose not to arm themselves and thus become victims of crime cannot blame the system. They made a deliberate choice to forego self-defense, a right enshrined in the Constitution. Society cannot and should not cater to those who refuse to protect themselves, as their choices have dire consequences.

Drunk Driving: A Deliberate Choice

Drunk driving is not an accident; it is a deliberate act of first-degree murder. Everyone who goes to a restaurant, liquor store, or bar knows the risks associated with drinking and driving and makes a conscious decision to proceed. This choice to drive while intoxicated evidences a deliberate disregard for both public safety and the lives of others.

Similarly, the decision to not own and carry a firearm is equally deliberate. By choosing not to arm themselves, individuals invite crime upon themselves. When crimes are committed, the perpetrators can only be held accountable, while the victims must accept the consequences of their own inaction.

Leviathan of Compromises

The long-standing issue with gun control laws is that no genuine compromise has been achieved. Every compromise proposed by the gun control advocates has been met with further demands, often without any reciprocal concessions. This has led to a non-refutable erosion of civil liberties, including the 2nd and 10th Amendments. The goal has always been to eliminate all firearm possession, with each compromise merely a step toward that ultimate goal.

This historian's standpoint on the history of compromise serves as a critical reminder. True compromise means mutual concessions and not simply more concessions from one side. The trend of ever-advancing restrictions is akin to the 'pyramid of choice,' where every step is a small concession, ultimately leading to significant loss of rights. Each step taken is a step backward in securing individual liberties, and by the time the full extent of these losses is realized, it is often too late to reverse them.

The push for gun control continues, and the definition of 'compromise' is often manipulated to suit the goals of the advocates. This view underscores the importance of standing firm on core constitutional rights and not yielding ground unnecessarily.