This morning I took the Avalanche to the local Chevy dealer for an oil change.  They have a TV in the waiting room, which was set to the local ABC station, which was showing Good Morning America.

Every time I am exposed to that show my blood pressure levels start to creep up and I have to remember not to yell obscenities (especially when in a public place like this morning).  Why does GMA inspire such loathing from me?  Because I can never forgive socialist scumbags Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer for calling me and people like me (the NRA and gunowners) murderers and claiming that we were teaching children to kill.

In case you hadn’t noticed by now, this is an area where I will accept no compromise and give no quarter.  The right to keep and bear arms does not belong to the states (there is no such thing as a “right” of government under our system), it’s not about hunting, and it would exist regardless of the existence of the Second Amendment.  While I am a member of the NRA, I often find myself at odds with the national leadership because of their weak stance on the issues (and past compromises).  It’s too bad I haven’t found a no-compromise gun rights organization that isn’t saddled with right-wing conservative nonsense.  If GOA was a single-issue organization, I might support them more (although there are times when I join with them to oppose bad laws).

I know proponents of victim-disarmament often complain that something must be done and that we should compromise and we can’t simply oppose everything they’re trying to do for the children™—you have to be for something.  Indeed, that’s one of my complaints about the NRA.  Too much time spent reacting rather than pushing our agenda forward.  I stand for certain things, and those things all involve repealing the tremendous number (>20,000) of gun laws that we’ve been saddled with over the past 100 years or so.  The only laws we need with regards to guns are the ones about not harming or killing other people.  Everything else is covered by that already.

As for the issue of compromise, consider the first definition of the word:

A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

I get upset everytime I hear one of these oily, disingenuous victim-disarmament proponents use this word.  The reason is that every time it comes up it really means that we have to give up more of our rights.  That’s why a compromise isn’t possible.  The other side hasn’t made any concessions (other than to maybe agree not to take as many of our rights this time; they’ll come back for the rest later).

Oh well, I didn’t set out to get into a rant about the evils of “gun-control,” so I’ll stop here before I get too worked up.