"No compromise on our rights. Not now. Not ever. "

 One of the things Mike Vanderboegh of the blog Sipsey Street Irregulars used to say was "We will not back up (on guns) one more inch." Mike noted that the patriots had constantly given up gun rights while getting nothing in return. Indeed, no compromise has been the policy behind this blog as well. Starting in 1968 the Left has chipped away at our supposedly Constitutionally protected rights, and then come back the next year for another bite of the apple. Well, if we must give up a Constitutional right, they should also give up a constitutional right as well, like, oh, say...the right to vote ever again. Yet there are many reasons why that just won't work, so let's go with 'not one more inch!'

Today at Townhall.com Kurt Schlichter echoes the no compromise proposal in an article entitled No Compromise on Guns. He even says we should repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Yes!

Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent.

There are several Republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns with the Democrats, whose ultimate goal is to rule unchallenged over a nation of disarmed, supine Canadian serfs. Some are lawyers, which explains why they are in Congress and not raking in bucks lawyering. If I went to one of my clients and suggested, "Okay, I propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return," I would have to find an alternate income stream too.

The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory.

If we were truly to follow the Second Amendment as intended, each able bodied (and mentally sound of mind) male would join a local militia, train with said militia, and take his M16 or M4 home with him. Each year he would qualify, and train with his weapon, and would maintain the weapon and keep a certain number of rounds constantly on hand. Please note that no army in the world has ever issued the AR 15 to its troops as weapons of war. Their troops would be slaughtered. The AR 15 is semiautomatic, while the U.S. Army issued the select fire M16 which was capable of fully automatic fire.

So, let us end the call for banning AR 15s and other so-called "assault weapons." Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, and other elected federal officials have no such right. The Constitution stands, as does the Bill of Rights, and these people have taken an oath to uphold and defend it.