Compromise For Thee, But Not For Me

The Anchoress is one of my favorite bloggers, but I think she strikes out here… (emphasis mine — ed.)

I guess the fact that Rudy poses a threat to the “favorite sons” of the far-right, Romney (unelectable) and Allen (unelectable), we’ll now have to watch Rudy’s own side try to sabotage him, just like the Dems are trying to toss Joe Lieberman under the bus.
It’s shameful, but it is becoming less and less surprising. Recall, these are the same folks who, a few months ago, were almost calling for the impeachment of President Bush, because he was only giving them 75% of what they were demanding.
Reagan had problems with these folks, too, recall. They are the folks who always let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I’m pro-life, pro gun-ownership and I would vote for Rudy in a New York minute. I trust him to do the right thing. He turned NYC from a hellhole into a haven.

Maybe Rudy would do the right things vis-a-vis the General War on Terror, and for that he should be lauded and commended, but as far as everything else goes, he’s little better than the likes of Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee. Also, as far as turning NYC into a “haven,” if it was really that good, then Rudy’s successor, the would-be Napoleon Michael Bloomberg, would not have more or less declared war on a certain industry that has done nothing wrong. And in the same vein, surely the GOP can do better than someone who thinks that “just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well.” Not only can it do better, but it must. Let the Democrats be the ones not to trust the people to do the right thing.
But — and this is where the title of this post comes in — here is what really gets my goat:

There can be no common ground on an idea that an “adult in good faith” should be able to take an underage girl out of state to procure an abortion. While Hillary and her cohorts plead “compassion” here what they are doing is making it easy for your 14 year-old daughter’s 24 year-old exploiter to take her across the state lines and have the evidence of his statutory rape vacuumed out of her body before he leaves her, crushed and alone, to deal forever with what has happened to her.

Well, the fact of the matter is, there are more than a few of us who hold the exact same position on any kind of gun control — that is, we believe “there can be no common ground on the idea that the American people must be licensed by the government to own the best tools for the job of upholding the first law of nature, that of self defense.” We believe “there can be no common ground on the idea that the American people must be licensed by the government to own the very tools which raise the cost of that government’s potential oppression.”
So it would seem that what is being advocated here is “compromise for me, but not for thee.” And say what you will, but I think that’s outrageously unfair. People can argue about abortion all day long, but owning a firearm is a natural right granted to a person by that person’s very existence. I refer you once again to the GeekWithA.45, who explained that first law of nature better than I ever could:

Let’s start with the very first principles.
I (we) exist.
Inherent in that existence is the right to continue that existence, and that right exists everywhere we are.
There is nowhere on this earth or off it where the right to defend yourself does not exist.
Implicit in this right of self defense is the right to take positive action to actually effect that defense.
Since you have the right to take action to defend yourself, you also have the right to use tools to make that defense as effective as possible.
Since an immediate threat to your life is the most dire circumstance imaginable, and that this threat can emerge at any time, and in any place, and since failing to deal effectively with the threat means that you DIE FOREVER (as far as we can tell, anyway) any and all means are legitimate to effect your defense.
Therefore, you naturally have the right to posess and have with you, anywhere, the most effective means available to defend yourself, be it a stick, spear, sword, flintlock, modern firearm, forcefield, or phaser.
If you deny any element of the above, the whole thing will unravel all the way back to your very existence, and you are really arguing that someone else has a right to make you not exist.

You might well ask, “what’s any of that have to do with Rudy Giuliani’s position on guns?”
Everything. With that license proposal, he’s basically saying we should cede the decision to own a gun to a government-sanctioned body, regardless of all the basic violations of Constitutional and human rights that could ensue. I’ve heard it said before that in places like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, you could be denied a purchase permit or Firearm Owner ID card/renewal if you went to your local police station (or whichever law enforcement agency regulates gun purchases in those respective states) wearing the wrong color shirt. Rudolph Giuliani wants to take that system and impose it on all of us, from sea to shining sea.
And that is what some people think we should compromise on? Uh…no. Not just no, but hell no. If the Republicans cannot find someone to put on their ticket who will make the tough decisions in the War On Terror AND protect the basic, God-given rights our Founding Fathers fought and died for, pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for — if the Republicans cannot find someone who will do all that and ultimately trust the people to do the right thing, be it with their money, choice to own instruments of deadly force (you know, trust the people to take personal responsibility for that action and all it entails) or anything else — then maybe, just maybe, they deserve to lose. The only thing that makes me hesitate to say that is the fact that someone like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi would then have their finger on the nuclear button, and then where would that leave us? The perfect is indeed often the enemy of the good, but as far as I am concerned, Rudy Giuliani doesn’t even rise to the level of “good.” We can do better, and we must.

UPDATE: Via Gun Law NewsWhy Shooters Don’t Like Licenses:

Why Shooters Don’t Like Licenses

Advocates of tougher gun laws are unable to understand the horror that shooters feel when the word “license” comes up. After all, say the anti-gunners, aren’t drivers licensed? And pilots, and just about anyone who has anything to do with anything that moves? Well, here’s an example why we don’t like licensing, and it happened to a co-worker of mine who had a permit to keep two handguns in his home in New York City.

Mr. M, as we will call him, moved from one borough of New York to another, and as required by law sent in his application for a new license with the new address, along with a money order for $340. Time went by, and nothing happened. When Mr. M called the New York City Police Department, he was told that his permit had been sent to him. Then, after much back and forth, he was told that the permit application had been lost (but not, apparently, the $340 money order). And then he was told that since he had not notified the NYPD of his move, his permit was revoked.

Then followed a Kafka-esque back and forth with the NYPD, who advised Mr. M that since he didn’t have a permit for them, he had to surrender his guns or be arrested. So he did. And, pursuant to Title 38, Chapters 5 and 15 of the Rules of the City of New York, Mr. M requested a hearing, appealing the revocation of his license. He hired a lawyer to represent him and amazingly, the hearing officer found for him. This was on April 3, 2006.

Well, you say, the system works; the system is fair. Not quite. On May 10, a Mr. Thomas Prasso, who is Director (of what he does not say) wrote a letter to Mr. M that says:

“As a result of an administrative hearing held on April 3, 2006. Your license has been CANCELLED. A copy of the hearing report is enclosed.

“This determination concludes the Police Department’s review of this matter. You may appeal this determination by commencing an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court within four months of the date of this letter.”

And so Mr. M is out his two guns, which he will never see again, $340 for the money order, and $550 for the lawyer. If he is inclined to spend a lot more money and waste a lot more time, he can indeed pursue an Article 78. But what would you say his odds are of getting his license?

How can ANYONE be pro-gun-ownership and support something like this being taken nationwide???



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: