KirtFalcon Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 No Compromise on Guns Kurt Schlichter | Jun 06, 2022 12:01 AM Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent. There are several Republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns with the Democrats, whose ultimate goal is to rule unchallenged over a nation of disarmed, supine Canadian serfs. Some are lawyers, which explains why they are in Congress and not raking in bucks lawyering. If I went to one of my clients and suggested, "Okay, I propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return," I would have to find an alternate income stream too. The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory. Of course, this effectively buys into the premise that there is something wrong with guns. There is not. Guns, as I point out in my new book "We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America," are an essential element of any free society. Australia gave up its guns and look at them. Canada, too. Nah, I say we unreservedly reserve our ultimate veto over tyranny. People who wish us ill wish the opposite. Recently, Chris Hayes, the bespectacled nimrod who holds the briefcase of the slightly more masculine Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, recently simpered that a lot of Americans insist on keeping their guns to fight tyrannical government agents. Well, yeah. Exactly. Nothing gets by him. Weird that he would reach back about 250 years to oppose the Revolutionary War, but whatever. Sissies gotta siss. The unspoken premise of the people outraged that the citizenry wants to retain the ultimate veto on government power is that they are the ones who will be wielding that government power. And you need to wonder why they want us disarmed. Actually, you don't. You lived through COVID and know. In support of this noxious notion come some establishment people waving their credentials on Twitter around like you should simply defer to them. One is a major general who used to run my alma mater, the Infantry School at Ft. Benning. According to the general, he gets it. He knows that these are weapons of war and that we civilians don't need them. Well, not so much. As much as I love generals [INSERT THEATRICAL EYE-ROLL HERE], I must point out some problems with the two-star's premise. A major general typically commands a division of about 15,000. He is a conductor of organized violence, operating in the macro. Of course, he understands what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do. You know who else knows what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do? Me and every other vet who ever shot one, as well as the 20 million or more Americans who own AR-15s and the tens of millions of others who have used them. So, there's no special expertise there. We know those rounds can hurt people. That's why we want them. To hurt bad people if deterrence fails. That's why in the LA Riots, the Army gave me a 5.56mm rifle to carry. I just think everyone else should get the same protection I had. The general goes further than mere technical details and opines that such weapons do not belong in the possession of anyone outside the military, where, presumably, people like him can control their use. But that's not a technical issue for which he is offering his expertise. That's a policy issue. Why is a former (but sympathetic) government official under the impression that his past position gives him some sort of special expertise that we should defer to in terms of foundational constitutional policy, i.e., whether or not citizens should have the capacity to resist violent tyranny? The answer is that he doesn't, and the fact that guys like him are presumably the ones who would be called upon to carry out the dirty work of a tyrannical government (in the remote but potential scenario where that might happen in the future) actually makes him the very worst person to opine on the policy. But you are supposed to be dazzled by the stars and submit. You can be sure there are GOP dummies just aching to, held back only by Mitch McConnell – the frustrating Murder Turtle who nevertheless is no dummy – whispering in their ears that screwing us over on guns is just about the only thing that can turn an electoral environment of $6 a gallon gas and public school groomers into a Republican rout. No, this is not the time to go soft. This is not the time to indulge the perennial Republican disease of craven spinelessness in the face of Democrats and their regime media minions screaming lies about them. This is the time to say "No." No compromise on our rights. Not now. Not ever. Conservatives Must Stand Together and Fight. Join Townhall VIP. And Check Out This Week's Stream of Kurtiousness, Biden Sticks a Stake Through the Heart of Gun Control Legislation. And my podcast, Unredacted. Go pre-order my next non-fiction book, "We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America," which owns the libs as it discusses all sorts of terrible scenarios that America might well face. National divorce. Civil war. Barren wine women. And don't forget my Kelly Turnbull series of conservative action novels. The latest is "The Split," but get all these action-packed bestsellers, including "People's Republic," "Indian Country," "Wildfire," "Collapse," and "Crisis"! SHOW COMMENTS https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2022/06/06/no-compromise-on-guns-n2608232 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent. There are several Republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns with the Democrats, whose ultimate goal is to rule unchallenged over a nation of disarmed, supine Canadian serfs. Some are lawyers, which explains why they are in Congress and not raking in bucks lawyering. If I went to one of my clients and suggested, "Okay, I propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return," I would have to find an alternate income stream too. The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory. Of course, this effectively buys into the premise that there is something wrong with guns. There is not. Guns, as I point out in my new book "We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America," are an essential element of any free society. Australia gave up its guns and look at them. Canada, too. Nah, I say we unreservedly reserve our ultimate veto over tyranny. People who wish us ill wish the opposite. Recently, Chris Hayes, the bespectacled nimrod who holds the briefcase of the slightly more masculine Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, recently simpered that a lot of Americans insist on keeping their guns to fight tyrannical government agents. Well, yeah. Exactly. Nothing gets by him. Weird that he would reach back about 250 years to oppose the Revolutionary War, but whatever. Sissies gotta siss. The unspoken premise of the people outraged that the citizenry wants to retain the ultimate veto on government power is that they are the ones who will be wielding that government power. And you need to wonder why they want us disarmed. Actually, you don't. You lived through COVID and know. In support of this noxious notion come some establishment people waving their credentials on Twitter around like you should simply defer to them. One is a major general who used to run my alma mater, the Infantry School at Ft. Benning. According to the general, he gets it. He knows that these are weapons of war and that we civilians don't need them. Well, not so much. As much as I love generals [INSERT THEATRICAL EYE-ROLL HERE], I must point out some problems with the two-star's premise. A major general typically commands a division of about 15,000. He is a conductor of organized violence, operating in the macro. Of course, he understands what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do. You know who else knows what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do? Me and every other vet who ever shot one, as well as the 20 million or more Americans who own AR-15s and the tens of millions of others who have used them. So, there's no special expertise there. We know those rounds can hurt people. That's why we want them. To hurt bad people if deterrence fails. That's why in the LA Riots, the Army gave me a 5.56mm rifle to carry. I just think everyone else should get the same protection I had. The general goes further than mere technical details and opines that such weapons do not belong in the possession of anyone outside the military, where, presumably, people like him can control their use. But that's not a technical issue for which he is offering his expertise. That's a policy issue. Why is a former (but sympathetic) government official under the impression that his past position gives him some sort of special expertise that we should defer to in terms of foundational constitutional policy, i.e., whether or not citizens should have the capacity to resist violent tyranny? The answer is that he doesn't, and the fact that guys like him are presumably the ones who would be called upon to carry out the dirty work of a tyrannical government (in the remote but potential scenario where that might happen in the future) actually makes him the very worst person to opine on the policy. But you are supposed to be dazzled by the stars and submit. You can be sure there are GOP dummies just aching to, held back only by Mitch McConnell – the frustrating Murder Turtle who nevertheless is no dummy – whispering in their ears that screwing us over on guns is just about the only thing that can turn an electoral environment of $6 a gallon gas and public school groomers into a Republican rout. No, this is not the time to go soft. This is not the time to indulge the perennial Republican disease of craven spinelessness in the face of Democrats and their regime media minions screaming lies about them. This is the time to say "No." No compromise on our rights. Not now. Not ever. Conservatives Must Stand Together and Fight. Join Townhall VIP. And Check Out This Week's Stream of Kurtiousness, Biden Sticks a Stake Through the Heart of Gun Control Legislation. And my podcast, Unredacted. Go pre-order my next non-fiction book, "We'll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America," which owns the libs as it discusses all sorts of terrible scenarios that America might well face. National divorce. Civil war. Barren wine women. And don't forget my Kelly Turnbull series of conservative action novels. The latest is "The Split," but get all these action-packed bestsellers, including "People's Republic," "Indian Country," "Wildfire," "Collapse," and "Crisis"! SHOW COMMENTS https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2022/06/06/no-compromise-on-guns-n2608232
Monte1076 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Remember: We are CITIZENS, we are not SUBJECTS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Better tell John Crony.....he is leading the compromise efforts....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlahBlah Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 I could care less if their is a background check done on gun sells. I'm not getting denied the right to purchase the gun, but may have to wait 72hrs or so. If I couldn't wait that long. Then somebody should be counting their lucky stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 37 minutes ago, BlahBlah said: I could care less if their is a background check done on gun sells. I'm not getting denied the right to purchase the gun, but may have to wait 72hrs or so. If I couldn't wait that long. Then somebody should be counting their lucky stars. Background checks already exist though. So all these people talking about "background checks" likely don't know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlahBlah Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 23 minutes ago, Monte1076 said: Background checks already exist though. So all these people talking about "background checks" likely don't know what they're talking about. Not on all gun sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBizzle Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, RETIREDFAN1 said: Better tell John Crony.....he is leading the compromise efforts....... Tried voting him out multiple times... 1 hour ago, BlahBlah said: I could care less if their is a background check done on gun sells. I'm not getting denied the right to purchase the gun, but may have to wait 72hrs or so. If I couldn't wait that long. Then somebody should be counting their lucky stars. What if that person is your daughter who is in an abusive relationship and is worried that her significant other could do something to harm her or their kids? You think 72 hours isn't a big deal? 21 minutes ago, BlahBlah said: Not on all gun sales. Any gun bought through a licensed dealer requires a federal background check. What else do you want? Checks on private sales? You can't do that without creating a Federal Gun Registry. What comes with a Gun Registry? More loss of freedom and the ability to confiscate your weapons because they know how many and what you have. The federal government works for us and they don't have to tell us where all their guns are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlahBlah Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 18 minutes ago, JBizzle said: Tried voting him out multiple times... What if that person is your daughter who is in an abusive relationship and is worried that her significant other could do something to harm her or their kids? You think 72 hours isn't a big deal? Any gun bought through a licensed dealer requires a federal background check. What else do you want? Checks on private sales? You can't do that without creating a Federal Gun Registry. What comes with a Gun Registry? More loss of freedom and the ability to confiscate your weapons because they know how many and what you have. The federal government works for us and they don't have to tell us where all their guns are. 1. Stop being scared of your own shadow. 2. Any police department or sheriff dept. can do a background check. They can't give you specifics on person due to privacy issue, but they can give you a thumbs up or down for any sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiOne Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 53 minutes ago, BlahBlah said: 1. Stop being scared of your own shadow. That is what hitler told the Jews. Then he took their guns right before he took their wedding rings. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wedding-rings-holocaust-victims/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashyhound Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, BlahBlah said: 1. Stop being scared of your own shadow. 2. Any police department or sheriff dept. can do a background check. They can't give you specifics on person due to privacy issue, but they can give you a thumbs up or down for any sell. I'm not scared of my shadow, I'm scared of tyrannical government. Just like the founders who wrote "shall not be infringed" 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 3 hours ago, BlahBlah said: Not on all gun sales. Which one's aren't they done on, and you can't answer gun shows. The only one's that might slip through are stolen guns and private gun sales, and there are laws against those sales. If a dealer at a gun show is caught not doing a background check they will be charged, and not allowed to attend gun shows depending on how long the judge decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepeSilvia Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 2 hours ago, ObiOne said: That is what hitler told the Jews. Then he took their guns right before he took their wedding rings. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wedding-rings-holocaust-victims/ Actually, he just didn’t give them their gun rights back. He loosened gun rights for everyone but Jews after the fall of the Weimar Republic. Besides, even if he would have gave them their gun rights back the Jewish population was so small in Germany they still wouldn’t have stood a chance. To compare the minimal gun legislation proposed to the holocaust is an embarrassment and shows what little grasp of history you truly have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlahBlah Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 3 hours ago, DaveTV1 said: Which one's aren't they done on, and you can't answer gun shows. The only one's that might slip through are stolen guns and private gun sales, and there are laws against those sales. If a dealer at a gun show is caught not doing a background check they will be charged, and not allowed to attend gun shows depending on how long the judge decides. 1. Private sales. 2. Flea Markets 3. Gun shows. I have seen in FT Worth's Will Rogers Coliseum a ton of clearly gang members purchasing guns around 4 or 5 years ago at one of their gun shows. Maybe they had someone who could pass a background check and bought it for them. I did clearly see them walking to the car with the fire arms. Maybe, hopefuly, it has changed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiOne Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 13 hours ago, PepeSilvia said: Actually, he just didn’t give them their gun rights back. He loosened gun rights for everyone but Jews after the fall of the Weimar Republic. Besides, even if he would have gave them their gun rights back the Jewish population was so small in Germany they still wouldn’t have stood a chance. To compare the minimal gun legislation proposed to the holocaust is an embarrassment and shows what little grasp of history you truly have. What a strange statement. Hitler didn't take away Jews gun rights, "he just didn’t give them their gun rights back." "Besides, even if he would have gave them their gun rights back the Jewish population was so small in Germany they still wouldn’t have stood a chance." You believe that millions of Jews would have lined up in box cars to their death, if they had guns to defend themselves? Beyond that, I believe that the SS doesn't even come attempt to round up the Jewish people if they are armed. Too many casualties and not worth it while trying to fight a world war. Sometimes you have to think past the lefty talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashyhound Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 21 minutes ago, ObiOne said: Sometimes you have to think past the lefty talking points. He's incapable of thinking for himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnjoyLife Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 1 hour ago, ObiOne said: Beyond that, I believe that the SS doesn't even come attempt to round up the Jewish people if they are armed. Too many casualties and not worth it while trying to fight a world war. Sometimes you have to think past the lefty talking points. Your statement is hypothetical so there is no way to know for sure...but I have to disagree. The extermination of the Jews was Nazi ideology...and ideology is rarely rational...so the round up of the Jews would have taken place no matter what imo. When the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rose up against the occupiers with smuggled weapons the Germans just responded with over whelming force and wiped them out. Even late in the war when Germany desperately needed every asset at their disposal to slow the allied advance they still committed man power, trains etc to eliminating the Jews. As I said...ideology is rarely rational. Sorry if I got off subject and turned this into a history discussion but this stuff interests me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepeSilvia Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 5 hours ago, ObiOne said: What a strange statement. Hitler didn't take away Jews gun rights, "he just didn’t give them their gun rights back." "Besides, even if he would have gave them their gun rights back the Jewish population was so small in Germany they still wouldn’t have stood a chance." You believe that millions of Jews would have lined up in box cars to their death, if they had guns to defend themselves? Beyond that, I believe that the SS doesn't even come attempt to round up the Jewish people if they are armed. Too many casualties and not worth it while trying to fight a world war. Sometimes you have to think past the lefty talking points. You might want to check on how many Jews actually lived in Germany when Hitler came to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiOne Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 8 minutes ago, PepeSilvia said: You might want to check on how many Jews actually lived in Germany when Hitler came to power. A lot more than when he came out of power. You are the one who mentioned Germany. Were German Jews the only ones Hitler disarmed and murdered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav01 Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 The Nazis also committed false flags while slowly nudging their agendas into place. I'm sure they were called conspiracy theories back then as well. But no, there's no way that could be happening today too! Naa 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBizzle Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 On 6/6/2022 at 2:50 PM, BlahBlah said: 1. Stop being scared of your own shadow. 2. Any police department or sheriff dept. can do a background check. They can't give you specifics on person due to privacy issue, but they can give you a thumbs up or down for any sell. I ain't scared of my shadow. I am afraid of losing my God-given rights to a set of rules that will in no way solve the problems that we are facing right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 23 hours ago, PepeSilvia said: Actually, he just didn’t give them their gun rights back. He loosened gun rights for everyone but Jews after the fall of the Weimar Republic. Besides, even if he would have gave them their gun rights back the Jewish population was so small in Germany they still wouldn’t have stood a chance. To compare the minimal gun legislation proposed to the holocaust is an embarrassment and shows what little grasp of history you truly have. You're the one that said the Jewish population was small. but in 1921 when Hitler came to power it was 16% of the Nation with 11,600,000 Jews. The world will never know what would have happened if they had their guns. It could have been like Masada or the Maccabees, but it could have turned out like the 6 days war when the Israelis were outnumbered. The Jews have done more with less than any other people on the face of the earth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomer Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 How about: as long as I'm not a felon I keep my guns, ammo and magazines and they deal with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now