... but sometimes he sure acts like it.
Today's FoxNews.com headline: "Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate"
What does he think there is to compromise on?
Obama would like to end gun violence. So would the NRA. So would the Republicans. So would the Democrats. So would I.
So we agree. What is there to compromise on?
Obama wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. OK, so there is no compromise available on that point.
Take them away from the criminals. No need to compromise on that point.
Take them away from the shooters in Chicago who are killing 1-2-3-4-5 people every day. No need to compromise on that point.
As I wrote to Illinois Lt. Gov. Simon, I want guns to 1) defend myself and 2) defend the USA against all "enemies, foreign and domestic".
My pistols will be adequate against home invasion. They will not be adequate against "domestic enemies." For that, I'll need a semi-automatic assault-type rifle with high-capacity magazines.
I hate the thought of having to defend myself against "domestic enemies". Who might they be? Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Emanuel, Quinn, Madigan, Cullerton.
But I will do so. There is no doubt about that. There is no compromise possible on that.
As long as We the People are strong and adequately armed, we need not fear our own government - too much ... yet...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"Would you meet your killer half way?"
Is this not what Obama is demanding? And when we refuse to bare our throat, we get called:
"Obstructionist. Intransigent. Obstinate."
Note the qualifiers:
"Compromise sounds reasonable on its face. Absent any context, the term invites a sense of begrudging contentment. Certainly, compromise permeates our everyday lives. Every relationship we engage in requires compromises subtle and plain. It remains true that gestures of goodwill go a long way toward fostering mutually beneficial arrangements. However, that assumes both parties act in good faith. It also assumes that a given compromise serves a profitable long-term goal."
The above from
The subject was the fiscal cliff. But clearly appropriate here as well.
We must not compromise the Bill of Rights away, just because a despot demands it.
By the way. Did you know that DHS is buying 7000 AR15's for "personal defense?"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/
These rifles are issued by every PD in the nation on the notion that the police are outgunned by the bad guys.
If this is true (and I believe it to be), then why does the government want to leave the ordinary citizen at the mercy the same bad guys?
Wisely said, Clem K.
Compromise to Obama means he gets what he wants, and others settle for what's left.
Wish I'd bought that AR-15 with the four large clips for $1,700 today. I'm afraid I'm going to need it.
Im not afraid of people owning guns. I do question anyone spending $1700.00 for an ar15. Obama scare or not thats way too much. $800.00 to $1000.00 is more like it.
Yes, I agree about the $1,700, but it included a hard travel case (airline type), four 30-round magazines, MREs.
I don't remember whether there was a bayonet and camo gear.... : )
Anybody who pays what they're asking for thirty round magazines these days is a fool.
Maybe, but I'd rather be a fool and have 20+ more shots to fire than the other $40-50 in my pocket, when they pick up my body.
Woodstockabdicate-Under other conditions you are right about paying that mich is crazy. Obummer though has created a situation where people fear not being able to purchase them in the near future so there has been a big run on purchasing them. Good old supply and demand kicks in at that point and the price goes up like it or not.
Too harsh? Hows this...anybody who waited until now to get this stuff and pays what theyre asking is a fool. I just bought a dozen 30 rounders for $15.00 each and I think that is still too much. I will be able to double my money though since I really dont need these!
Post a Comment