Почему владельцы оружия не идут на компромиссы. Иллюстрированное руководство, на тему.
Вопрос: Будете ли вы продолжать конструктивный диалог который может нас к чему то привести, или?..
Ответ: Поскольку понятие конструктивности вкладываемое вами в это понятие находится в какой то иной реальности - едва ли.
Позвольте я вам объясню. Итак, у меня есть тортик "Права на оружие", очень милый и глазированный.
Но тут приходите вы и говорите: "Дай мне пирог, а?".
Я говорю: "нет."
- Ок, - говорите вы, - давайте сойдемся на компромиссе. Дайте мне половину?
- А что буду иметь я?
- Ну... ты сохранишь другую половину.
Ну и мы заключили сделку. Назовем ее законом об оружии 1934года.
И тут ты возвращаешься и говоришь: "А дай ка мне еще пирога!".
- Нет.
- Ну давай пойдем на компромисс...
И что я из него сохранил? Половину той половины что и так была моей. Назовем этот "компромисс" актом о контроле оружия 1968г.
И ты приходишь снова за оставшейся четвертью, куснув ее еще пару раз. Ну пусть это будут указы Клинтона. Оставив меня с 10% от оригинального пирога, и забрав почти 90% оригинальных прав. Потом были еще акты и указы, оставившие мне крохи от оригинального прекрасного пирога... и вот ты стоишь, делаешь глаза кота из Шрека и ноешь что надо быть "ответственным", и вопрошаешь: "почему бы нам не пойти на компромисс..."
К черту это все. Хватит с меня этого бреда. Ничто в движении хоплофобов никогда не было ни разумным, ни тем более "компромиссом"!
Ну и собственно понравившийся мне отлуп ниже, под катом.
Yes, we did. Hell, I did.
I used to support background checks and 10 day waits and 10 round magazine limits. Why? I felt that it was a reasonable concession and didn't ultimately inhibit my 2nd amendment right all that much. It was something I was willing to sacrifice to appease some people, and (in the case of 10 day wait periods) to prevent a murder in the "heat of the moment."
The problem is that is not where it stopped. The anti-gun agenda continued to push forward and has since shown its hand. Their intent is to ban all guns, period. They can't do that, so they'll make them as expensive as possible to buy, difficult to own, and impractical as possible to use.
If you don't believe me, I'll be glad to create a list of gun-laws created after the background checks, 10 round magazines and 10 day wait periods.
The point is, when anti-gunners kept pushing and pushing and pushing, it finally got to a point where even "reasonable gun owners," gun owners like myself, decide that NO MORE is going to be tolerated. The constant nagging push from anti-gunners to inhibit my ability, while they pander to illegal immigrants and everything-Liberal, pushed me to the point where I am now no longer a reasonable gun owner, and have become a rabid 2A supporter.
Not for anything I did, but for the greedy gotta-get-your-hands-on-my-property attitude of the anti-gunners, they have changed me from someone who was willing to "meet in the middle," to someone who has drawn the line and wants to do everything within my power to move the line farther back.
Extremism breeds extremism. The anti-gunners are seeing this with the pro-gun people and their ability to mobilize in the last few years.
So now what you have is a base of people, who used to be willing to meet in the middle, who are more like I am now.
People who think background checks are horse**** and will be used for confiscation later (see: connecticut).
People who used to think "no, registration will not lead to confiscation", but then see our wonderful legislator here in Oakland, CA recommend that we "use the assault weapon registration to confiscate them."
People who used to think "I don't mind waiting 10 days" but after having all their gun stores shut down by local city councils and being required to drive 30-50-100 miles, twice, when they already own 30 guns, decide "that's fscking stupid."
People who used to think "I don't need a 30 round magazine, 10 is enough, I'll just buy forty of them," but now hear lawmaker after lawmaker, at the direction of our California Liberals, unilaterally decide that "10 is too much" and "7 is the new 10" decide screw that, 30 is the new 10, don't touch my guns.
People who used to think "Gee, I don't mind hunting with lead-free ammo if its near a condor, I mean, I don't want to kill the last condor" but now after finding out that the data regarding lead and the Condor was a complete lie, and that even after that data it has been expanded State wide (and don't kid yourself, you can bet your sweet *** "shooting on public grounds is next"), realize that its just another way to limit our options of what we shoot, now say "f' you, don't make any more hunting rules."
People like me, who used to think, "Yeah, handgun roster testing is a good idea. I'd like to know that my handgun has a drop safety," but now after the years and years of added requirements, including magical fantasy-land unicorn requirements that don't exist on the market, have decided that we don't give two squirts'a'piss as to what they say their testing for, it's apparent they're just trying to remove guns from the pool of which to buy.
I can go on and on, but while you call them "tinfoil" hatters — and 10 years ago I would have agreed with you — it turns out that in this case, they were right. In this case, the government has shown its hand and its true intentions with regards to private gun ownership in the State of California.
So now, if you ask me, the only reasonable gun owner is one who is absolutely, positively, 100% against any new gun control legislation and who is completely, positively, 100% behind the movement or restore our God given, not State permitted, RIGHT. The anti-gunners have no one but themselves to blame for the shift in opinion. '
Всё правильно. Права не дают, права берут.
ОтветитьУдалить