Compromise? It’s regrettable the word compromise has been so convoluted, because there are two basic kinds, often incompatible with each other. One is a physical compromise, the other, one of principle.

Let me give several examples. My wife and I want to
go to a movie. She wants to see a love-’em-up and I
want to see a shoot-’em-up. We compromise and pay to
see a comedy. My buddy and I are going hunting together.
He wants to eat breakfast at the Road Kill Cafe and I
want to dine at Mae’s Country Kitchen. We compromise
by eating at one on the way and the other coming back.

There is no real principle involved in either example,
each of us might be put out a bit by not getting their
own way but no harm occurs to either one’s principles.
“Giving in” and taking others into consideration is
a proper attitude for harmonious relationships; we
all do it constantly. There’s not a marriage that can
last more than two weeks if multitudinous physical
compromises aren’t made by both sides.

Physical compromise is a necessary good, often the
mark of an understanding and gentle person.

On the other hand, compromising principle is another
matter. Allowing oneself to be trapped into bargaining
away rights is destructive to character and should be
viewed as utter foolishness.

When an anti-gun legislator presents a bad piece of
legislation and then offers to water it down, he’s
not really compromising now, is he? We must always
ask, exactly what is being compromised? What is he
giving up? That legislator first asks for 100 percent
of our rights and then, through negotiation, takes
only 10 percent. He may have compromised his original
request, but we have forsaken principle by giving him
that 10 percent.

If a thief sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your
wallet, then decides, good naturedly, not to keep your
credit cards and the pictures of your kids, no compromise
is involved. He may be personable, even polite, but still
a thief and you, the victim.

When the legislature decides to steal some of our rights
and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what’s
the real difference between them and the thief?
Darn little!

They hide behind the excuse that they’re legislating
democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote
has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might
does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob
can justify its act because a majority participated.

Democratically, we elect men and women to office but
we have to ask . . . to do what? To abrogate our
rights? Restrict our freedom? Destroy our ability
to protect our lives, family and property? The answer
is a resounding NO!

We elect representatives to uphold the Constitution
and to protect our rights, not to negotiate them away
in the name of compromise and democracy. Our forefathers
understood that certain rights were inalienable,
God-given, untouchable by mere men. That’s why they
delineated these uncompromising principles in the Bill
of Rights. They weren’t kidding when they said it was
necessary to “bind men down by the chains of a
Constitution.”

We are often asked why we aren’t more amenable, willing
to compromise. Our answer is that we are always willing
to make concessions that are physical, but not of principle.
When we politically compromise and allow anti-gun legislation
to pass, no matter how insignificant it may appear to be, we
have abdicated our responsibilities. Abdication is the work
for surrendering our principles legislatively. Honor
binds us to resist with all our might.

It is our duty to oppose ANY AND ALL attempts at watering
down the principles embodied in the Second Amendment.

We are obligated by principle to vigorously oppose any
move that diminishes the same freedom enjoyed by our
fathers.

There are those in the gun movement who call out for
pragmatism, bipartisan cooperation and dialogue with
our opposition. It has been tried for decades and what
has been our reward? Lost ground. Retreat. A few crumbs
from the table. Many gun owners have been victims of
their own decency, believing some hope exists in dealing
with our implacable enemies. They have been intimidated
by the names we are called when we refuse to abdicate
our rights.

It’s a mortal sin when a gun organization caves in and
justifies any loss in the name of compromise. It’s not
compromise, it’s abdication pure and simple; lets call
it by it’s real name. . . . abdication.

We should all concentrate on regaining the ground we
have lost and begin by not giving another fraction
of an inch.