So in last night’s “die gun-grabbers die!” post, the Aesop excerpt included a link to LawDog’s classic “Gun Rights Cake” essay, one I’ve also mentioned here myself a time or three. But it suddenly occurred to me that some of y’all may not have seen it before, and probably passed Aesop’s glancing mention on by without a thought or care. And that’s too bad, because you’re missing out on a real standout of a gem of a prize: one of the most pithy, unusual, and well-put-together arguments against any further concessions to the maneuverings and manipulations of gun-grabbers who aren’t ever going to be placated no matter what we agree to give up—people for whom the word “compromise” has always meant “We win, you surrender.”
So as a public service, I’m gonna do y’all a solid and repost it again. There’s a comic-strip version which I’m all but certain I ran here a while back, and LawDog also helpfully provides a link to his own GRC repost which features some quite worthy additional material as well. But the Q&A discussion from the original text-only post is worth including a bit of, which I don’t believe I ever have put up here. So we’ll go with that one this time around.
Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?
Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.
Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That’s not a reason to ban their guns, though.
All good stuff, and there’s plenty more of it. And then comes the question that leads to the timeless and immortal “Gun Rights Cake” response.
Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Since what you consider to be reasonable isn’t even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.
Allow me to explain.
I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.
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.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “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 have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and 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.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
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”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.
Nope. It’s always been subterfuge, a diabolical stratagem that demonstrates what the Left learned from the unexpected failure of another of their pet projects, Prohibition. Incrementalism has been their preferred approach to stripping Americans of their freedom ever since, on just about any issue you care to name. The inch-by-inch, step-by-step approach ensures the frog stays in the pot, see, until he’s all boiled and done. But if there’s one core, take-it-to-the-bank truth about them, it is that they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.