means our rights and liberties are not bargained for, ever,
especially when we get nothing in return. Giving something
up without getting anything in return is not "compromise,"
Females Mission Statement
has been debated lately on the subject of compromise. I’ve
heard some claim that since we lost our rights gradually,
the only way we’re going to get them back is bit by bit.
I’ve heard claims that small victories are better than no
victories at all. And I’ve heard assertions that just because
someone believes in giving a little to protect the bigger
picture – the right to keep and bear arms – they aren’t
traitors or without principles.
like to address this today, because it appears personal
attacks within the gun rights movement regarding this particular
issue have reached a fevered pitch. Reputations are being
smeared, personal lives are being dragged through the mud,
character assassination abounds.
quite frankly, I’m sick of it!
please allow me to explain. Compromise in and of itself
is not an evil or unprincipled thing. Mutual concession
between two entities who each have different desires is
not wrong, in and of itself. The only time compromise becomes
unprincipled or lacking in moral fiber, is when the objective
principle of good and bad is at stake.
folks will argue that the objective principles of good and
bad do not exist. They are wrong, and it is this relativist
lack of virtue that has gotten us in trouble today.
are objective principles of good and bad? Life, personal
property, freedom – those who would compromise away those
principles are the ones I want to take aim at today.
friends. I have no problem with differing approaches to
restoring our right to keep and bear arms. I have no problem
with fighting to gradually restore our rights, or coming
out full force, guns blasting. What I DO have a problem
with is the following:
take issue with compromise for political expediency. No
one has the authority to trade our rights like so much raw
beef on the open market. Our rights are not a commodity.
They are not owned by the government, by the courts, or
by the NRA. You may not use something that doesn’t belong
to you as a tool of exchange. It’s like using stolen money
to buy you your heart’s desire. You may be able to do it,
but it’s immoral and wrong.
cannot stand the thought of turf wars when it comes to our
rights. Restoring our right to keep and bear arms does not
belong to one person or organization. It is the responsibility
of each and every one of us. It is my right to disagree
with your approach. It is my right and even my duty, as
an honest individual, to point out errors in your tactics.
But it is certainly not appropriate
to condemn you in public, decry your incompetence without
concrete proof, smear your good name, assassinate your character
or try and destroy, devastate or hamper your efforts in
any other way. It is the mark of a miserable mediocrity.
It’s the mark of a thief. And it’s the mark of an unprincipled
swine intent on protecting its own turf. People who cannot
argue issues rather than issue personal attacks obviously
don’t have very strong defenses for their positions, or
they’d debate the issues
what of compromise?
I said earlier, I don’t mind compromise, as long as it doesn’t
do long-term harm to the rest of us. I don’t mind compromise,
as long as it isn’t a compromise with evil at the expense
of good and wrong at the expense of right.
NICS Improvement Act is not an NRA compromise
I can live with. I don’t in any way, shape or form agree
with being forced to pass a background check to exercise
a basic human right. Not only is it costly and ineffective
as a crime deterrent, but it further fosters a black market
for “illegal” guns. If you actually believe that a background
check will keep a firearm out of a violent criminal’s hands,
you’re sadly mistaken. Those who want to purchase a firearm
to commit crime will do so legally or illegally, and no
background check will stop them.
the NRA is all gung-ho behind spending more taxpayer money
to bribe states into allowing feds access to even more of
their records. Why? Because this move allows relatively
easy passage to the Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. (S.659). With
Tom Daschle’s blessing, this bill – legislation the NRA
has sunk a lot of effort into – now has a chance of passage.
call this a compromise for political expediency. No thanks,
NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook defended his actions
in a recent motions hearing Seegars
v. Ashcroft by claiming
that he and the NRA are fighting for our Second Amendment
rights one small battle at a time.
Mr. Halbrook, I have to emphatically disagree with you.
You have every right to fight the Second Amendment battle
incrementally. I don't necessarily believe it's a bad thing
to take victory in pieces. But your emphatic plea to the
judge: “YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER
HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE
NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.”
– while a possible baby step forward for DC residents, could
end up being a gigantic step backward for the rest of us.
It legitimizes registration, and puts you and the NRA firmly
in the gun-grabber corner.
no, Mr. Halbrook, the NAACP didn’t go into court trying
to overturn all the Jim Crow laws at once, but they didn’t
concede that any part of those odious laws was acceptable
to them, as you did, Mr. Halbrook.
COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE
HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
didn’t see the NAACP attorneys begging the judge:
HONOR WE’RE HERE WANTING ACCESS TO RESTAURANTS. WE ARE NOT
HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO WHITE-ONLY BATHROOMS.
WE ARE NOT HERE ASKING TO RIDE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS.
WE JUST WANT TO EAT IN A RESTAURANT.”
you didn’t see the NAACP implying that “reasonable regulation”
of African Americans’ access to white facilities was tolerable,
did you, Mr. Halbrook?
COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON BLACK PEOPLE?
YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
the difference between your compromise and the NAACP’s incrementalist
approach. You, Mr. Halbrook, conceded to evil. The NAACP
fought it one case at a time and won. And as much as you
want to spin your words as comparable to the NAACP’s strategy,
they aren’t even close. You compromised on principles, Mr.
Halbrook. This is an unacceptable compromise in my book,
and one that you and the NRA should be ashamed of.
has compromise been an effective strategy in the gun rights
movement? That would depend on what your ultimate goal is.
If your ultimate goal is the restoration of our absolute
right to keep and bear arms, thus far it has been an abysmal
Sarah Brady compromise? When has the Brady Center and the
“Couple of thousand misguided mommies” ever gone half-assed
on any gun control issue? They fight until their knuckles
are bloody. They go in charging. Sometimes they win, and
sometimes they lose, but I have never seen them publicly
concede to the gun rights movement in order to get their
pet legislation passed. Brady may win some and she may lose
some, but a thorough examination of her organization’s website
has never revealed any concessions to the gun lobby.
not afraid to lose. She’s singularly devoted to fighting
for her cause, misguided and tyrannical though it may be.
She knows what she wants, and she fights tooth and nail
to achieve it. And when she loses, regardless of her attempts
at spin, she can at least go home at the end of the day
proud that she hasn’t compromised away any of her principles.
you know what, people? She’s winning. A little bit at a
time, the Brady Center is getting what it wants – gun control.
Take a look at the past few decades. Has our situation gotten
better, or has it gotten worse? Have we seen any improvement
for gun owners in this country, or have we seen a gradual
hasn’t compromised an iota. She and her flaming band of
miscreants have marched on, a little step at a time, on
the road to relieve us of our rights.
the gun rights lobby has compromised a little at a time,
supposedly to protect what’s left of our rights.
a look at the progress that has been made. Who has been
more successful? Have your gun rights been restored at all
in the past couple of decades? How about the past century?
tell me again, how effective has compromise been?
Nicki is a US Army
veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany
on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a
former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and
Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com.
She is also a former contributing editor to the National
Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook
and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides
in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki
as regular contributor to Armed Females of America.
Copyright © 2003 by Armed Females of America. All rights
to redistribute this article for noncommercial purposes
is hereby granted, provided that it is reproduced unedited,
in its entirety and appropriate credit given.