Preemptive Surrender on Guns as Futile as Appeasement

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_03 Sep. 08 13.27
Anyone who believes appeasement will bring “peace in our time” with the gungrabbers is deluding themselves and their followers.

AmmoLand Gun News

USA -(Ammoland.com)- In the past two columns, we’ve been discussing recommendations by the Independent Firearm Owners Association disseminated in a media alert following the Roanoke murders.

In part one we looked at some general concessions. Part two looked at specific recommendations offered as an olive branch of sorts to those insisting “we must do something.”

I went through reasons such assumptions are dangerous. I also said, since their proposals are unacceptable, I’d submit an alternative for consideration.

“Let's agree to prevent the issues that divide us from moving forward with the multitude of action items that we are united as Americans in achieving,” IFoA recommends, presuming actions that infringe are what unite us.

A question that’s come up is who is IFoA a front for? There’s an understandable assumption that it must be backed by anti-gun interests, as we’ve seen in the past with groups like the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

It’s actually an effort by attorney Richard Feldman, author of the book “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,” an exposé that did not endear him to the folks he used to represent at NRA. (Back when he was still brokering deals, he put together the Clinton White House Rose Garden photo op, to name one of his industry-approved “achievements.”)

Still, the media certainly seemed to enjoy calling attention to the break-up, as noted by “The Gun Writer” Lee Williams in a 2013 profile. One point worth mentioning is Williams wrote that he never received a promised copy of the group’s IRS Form 1099, and two years later, unless it files under a different name, a search on the Guidestar nonprofit website produces “0 results.”

I’ve been receiving emails from Feldman for a few years now, corresponding on occasion, and I don’t believe he or his board are doctrinaire anti-gunners — I think when they say “[A]fter Newtown … [w]e squandered an opportunity to discuss the divergent gun-related problems that affect the country,” they actually believe it.

After Sandy Hook, there was a group of interested parties in the gun community I was privy to participate in discussions with, including some media folks, industry reps and activists, that also included, fortunately, some no-compromise state group leaders. An unfounded belief a significant number of participants had come to accept was that politicians would have no choice but to offer their constituents “something” and our best option would be to craft a proposal that would be as benign and defensible as possible. Naturally, I was part of a “dissident” faction that said, not only “No,” but ‘Hell no,” and we put all on notice that any preemptive surrender would be met with just as loud and vigorous an opposition – and counteroffensive – as if it had been proposed by gungrabbers.

I believe that had an effect because, with the exception of the aborted Manchin-Toomey ‘compromise,” talk of capitulation was toned down. I believe that’s because those counseling preemptive surrender realized they’d have a loud rebellion on their hands, where appeasers would face personal accountability.

The alternative position our little band of “extremists” promoted:

WE WON’T STAND FOR SCAPEGOATING

NO NEW GUN LAWS

DENY SUCCESS TO MASS MURDERERS BY ABOLISHING PHONY ‘GUN-FREE’ VICTIM / KILLER ENABLING ZONES NOW

WORK WITH US OR WE WILL WORK TO RETIRE YOU

What compelling reason is there for that to change now?

As for voices counseling ceding rights to those who have no claim to them, and passing it off as necessary compromise: You get the same answer some of us have already given to the outright antis, who have been stymied by unenforceable-against-mass-defiance edicts in places like Connecticut and New York. You get the ultimate “new paradigm” alternative:

We will not comply…       Your move.

If you let the enemy establish a beachhead without a fight, it will simply use that as the launching point for the next incursion into deeper territory. They want it all, but they’ll take it in pieces, should any be naive enough to collaborate with them. To expect incremental surrender will satisfy the antis and persuade them to back off would be as foolish as throwing a scrap of meat at a circling pack of jackals and thinking that will sate their hunger and that they’ll then move on and leave you alone.

But don't just take my word for it.

Also see:

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 9 thoughts on “Preemptive Surrender on Guns as Futile as Appeasement

    1. When you listen to the gungrabbing trash just consider the source and buy another firearm. The amount of law abiding firearms owners,the firearm industry,the pro-gun lobby,insures that the gun grabbers will always remain just that,scum that wants us disarmed but know it will never happen.

    2. You cannot compromise with a bunch of sociopaths – which is all the gun control groups and politicians really are.

      1. Thanks for the link Geoff. That strip is amazingly accurate. All it needed at the end was to add the quote “I’m mad as hell…”

    3. I have come to the “Screw you” + “We will not comply” + “Your move!” school of thought.

      This is NOT to say that we pledge NEVER to discuss ANY change in the law. Rather, that we will hold-hostage EVERY change until gun-laws are drafted by “the consent of the governed”. AFTER the Anti’s politicians have rolled-back many of the most egregious infringements on the RKBA we will entertain revisions to existing laws to make them less-infringing or new laws that do NOT infringe.

      The standard of review is the text of the 2A and 14A together with their respective contemporaneous understanding by the ratifiers. That position is consistent with Heller and McDonald. The key phrase is “shall not be infringed”; an expression that seems to anticipate that which we call “strict scrutiny” today. (These terms might not be identical; and infringement is controlling.)

      We ought NOT be sucked-into a debate about whether we are taking an “absolutist” position. The word “absolute” does not appear in the 1A, nor the 2A; neither does it appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Rather, the 1A states: “Congress shall make no law . . . “. The 2A states “. . . shall not be infringed.” These two phrases of the 1A and 2A stand in sharp contrast to those appearing elsewhere in the BoR:
      – 3A’s “. . . in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
      – 4A’s “unreasonable”.
      – 5A’s “without due process of law”; “without just compensation”.
      – 6A’s “speedy trial”; “impartial jury”;
      – 8A’s “excessive”.

      Whatever the ratifiers may have left for succeeding generations to: “prescribe by law”; “reason” about; consider “due process” or “just”, “speedy”, “impartial” or “excessive”, they seem to have precluded when they wrote “no law” or “not be infringed”. No debate about “absolutism” serves to illuminate the ratifiers’ understanding of the 1st Congress’ choices of construction in the 1A or 2A.

      Nor ought we to be sucked-into hypotheticals such as ratifiers’ intentions with respect to nuclear bombs. After Emily Miller can bear arms wherever she walks her dog in DC or NYC we can put nuclear technology on the bottom of the agenda.

      Perhaps public safety would never be enhanced by a revised or new gun-control law. Were this true, then there would remain no work to do after repeals and liberalizations that make existing laws non-infringing. This is to say that we conceded NOTHING about future discussions to follow repeals and liberalizations.

      Conversely, perhaps public safety could be enhanced by a new or revised law. Hypothetically, we need not dismiss such a possibility just as we could hypothetically admit of the utility of crueler and novel punishment as a deterrent. Nevertheless, we will filibuster EVERY such new or revised law so long as there reman so many egregious infringing laws in force.

      If those sympathetic to gun control have so much contempt for constitutional government that they reject such a position (as I have described) then they must meet us on the field of politics; or politics by other means. Ultimately, Chairman Mao was correct in identifying the source of political power.

    4. Many years ago I happened to read “Panzer Leader”, the autobiography of Heinz Guderian. One of the more striking people mentioned extensively in the book was Walter Model, AKA “Hitler’s Fireman”. Model was one of Germany’s most able panzer division officers but his outstanding trait was his mastery of defense. What I took away from Model’s mind set, and why I bring him up, is his determination, when not sure of his ability to hold the ground assigned to him, to make the enemy bleed for every bit of ground surrendered.

      The “go along to get along” days are over. The anti’s have taken away a good percentage of our “RKBA cake”. It’s past time dig in and, like Model, make them work for any ground gained from here on.

      The line in the dirt has been drawn. We need to tell the anti’s “You can pass whatever you want, repeal whatever you want, outlaw whatever you want. We will not comply! Your move!”

    5. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

      Thomas Jefferson

      Molon Labe

    6. Like King Cuomo saying I don’t want to ban guns, umm SAFE ACT you LIAR. He states he only wants to take arms from criminals, again a lie . He calls for registration of the list of semi auto weapons and everyday day capacity magazines and outlawed peoples property. Lawfully purchased property that He outlawed. He spits on the Constitution every day he remains in office , but you can not unseat the King of Welfare in NY.

    Comments are closed.