Saturday, April 11, 2015

Dudley Brown: I won't compromise! (Send me money!)

Colorado gun allies split over compromise on increasing magazine limit


rumcrook™ said...

It isn't compromise it's a win! It rolls the statists back! They have used incrementalism again st us for40 years we need to learn from them. they are weak right now and we could get back standard capacity magazines and they will have lost ground! This is them compromising and us winning.

Oregon Hobo said...

Well you know what they say about stopped clocks, and I think Brown is correct here. Compromising to a 30-round limit will take the heat off the Dems. It will make a law that is egregious in principle tolerable in practice.

Caldara's assertion that this compromise will make a full repeal easier is pure BS and I defy him to provide a shred of rational support for such an asinine argument. A compromise will make a repeal nigh impossible, because, as he said, 99% of magazines will already be decriminalized. The anger will dissipate, people will forget, and no anti-gun state representative will have anything to fear in Nov 2016. Only a small handful of "extremists" will still be fighting for repeal of a 30-round limit.

Slow and steady has always been how the gun-haters' have won each race in the past during their heyday. They chipped away just a tiny bit here, just a tiny bit there, but not enough to cause too much backlash, and if there was any backlash, that minimalist approach helped them to brand any pushback as "unreasonable".

Now though, in WA, CT, CO, and NY their impatience and arrogance has gotten the best of them. The gun-grabbers went a bridge too far, and now they're trying to conduct a strategic retreat to a line that they can hold and consolidate until they've gathered their strength for another incremental push in 5 or 15 years. Our enemies realize now that they made a mistake. Just as I've said with I-594, we should not be helping them to "fix" that mistake to make it more tolerable.

I live in CO now (I guess associating my pseudonym with a state was kind of pointless for a transient such as myself, eh), and I have notified my representatives that I intend to treat any vote for a compromise as worse than a vote for the original magazine ban.

The options are to repeal it now, or drag it out through the next election and then repeal it. Any other option will not include a repeal, and therefore will be an overall victory, however incremental, for the forces of evil.

If the Fudds are mad because they can't get to their happy place where they can comfortably kiss off the rest of us, then too bad. F*** 'em.

Happy trails,


Anonymous said...

The siren call of 'being reasonable' so often used in support of unreasonable and dehibilitating 'compromises'.

A spoon with a very long handle is needful when contemplaing supping with the Devil!


Roger said...

It always amazes me how many of the "I support the Second Amendment" crowd are so willing to put restrictions on same.

What is it that makes it so difficult for these 'soft 2A' types to understand that the Second Amendment "...shall not be infringed"?

Anonymous said...

Roger said...

It always amazes me how many of the "I support the Second Amendment" crowd are so willing to put restrictions on same

BINGO ... cannot regulate a right; when you support laws that lax up unlawful gun laws then you are saying that the laws had meaning to begin with...

Anonymous said...

Right!!! There's no reason to "compromise" away our right. Conceding thirty rounds is conceding that government has the authority to set a limit in the first place. They create scenarios where we "win" on a particular item while they win HUGE on premise... Which they later in use to drop the hammer right back on us.

It's past time we stand firm on principal and destroy their false premise fabrication. No, we won't "compromise" on thirty round mags BECAUSE the second amendment REMOVES FROM ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY the POWER to decide on a case by case basis whether a RIGHT is REALLY worth insisting upon.

I don't care who it is - if they advocate,support or otherwise excuse concession (calling it compromise changes not what it actually is) then they are not my friend - indeed they ARE treasonous traitors ...the enemy within. Couched, nuanced, spun, whatever! It's all the same in the end - cop out concession rebranded so as to avoid GUILT. Nope. They don't get to wiggle off the hook anymore.

Those who tout concession are GUN CONTROLLERS and must be called outs such. No free passes. Period

Carl Stevenson said...

Dudley constantly begs for money. I'm convinced that's 99.999% of what his groups do
And, once he gets your email address,mkt appears impossible to stop his spam. I've "unsubscribed" from his mailing lists AT LEAST a dozen times in the past month and the spam keeps coming. I'm on the verge of making a complaint to the PA Attorney General's office.

Oregon Hobo said...

Re: Carl Stevenson

That has been exactly my experience as well. I was warned about him on a gun mail list at work but foolishly ignored the wise advice of the other mail list members.

Dudley Brown filled my inbox with cup-rattling diatribes and fantastic fables about how fearsomely effective his lobbyists are, but it's all BS. He is nothing but a waste of time, money, and oxygen.

Unfortunately, he has accidentally fallen on the correct side of this issue. I just hope he doesn't too many people away.