A Defense of Absolutism

An excellent article appearing in Town Hall by someone who understands the political process:

In view of this monolithic trend towards governmental expansion and commensurate limitation of individual rights, Mr. LaPierre has adopted a strict constructionist viewpoint. He may agree that it isn’t a good idea for people like James Holmes to get his hands on assault weapons, but he knows that whatever restriction is accepted will be just the beginning.

That’s largely what our opponents fail to understand, and what we need to understand. There’s no reason to reach out and work together to find solutions. That’s not how the process works. People who think politics is the art of everyone getting together to solve problems is naive. Politics is the art of living together without killing each other, and as Clausewitz famously said, killing each other is just politics by other means.

My position is absolute. I want less, not more gun control. I’m not going to compromise or work with them on any issue unless the other side gets me in a position where the only choices are bad and worse.

15 thoughts on “A Defense of Absolutism”

    1. Mike, I don’t know you at all, but might I suggest every faction has some things it is absolutist about, and that to condemn someone else’s absolutism is almost always hypocritical?

      For example, are Jews being absolutist when they say “Never Again!”? Or are death camps a “well maybe, depends on the circumstances” sort of thing.

      And go ahead, accuse me of hyperbole in my analogy.

  1. It is my right, I was born with it, and is far above your power to detract from. You can nether take it away or curb it in any manner. Nor can I give it up, I may chose not to exercise my right but, it is still with me. You can try to regulate it, that is oppression, to ban it is tyranny. You can lock me in the deepest dungeon but, it will still be with me. Your only hope is to end my life; you should be prepare to pay the price should you try.

    1. Like, like, super-like…love!!!!!!!

      I could not have said this better. It was factual, concise, firm and yet relatively cordial. Well said!

      Thank you, Greg!

  2. How come the compromise the left advocates is always give up some of your rights instead of more of them. It is never improve gun rights in one regard in exchange for a restriction elsewhere?

    How about national CCW reciprocity in exchange tightening the control over those with serious mental health problems buying guns?

    1. That’s just what they’re accustomed to. For 70+ years “compromise” was defined as they get whatever they want and we get nothing in return and they’re still in a state of shell shock that it’s no longer the case.

      I’ve equated that long period of status quo as the equivalent of somebody breaking your arm, calling it a compromise because they didn’t break your leg along with it, then coming back 2 weeks later demanding they be allowed to break both legs so they can break one and call it a compromise…

    2. My concern about “mental health” restrictions is what are the standards and who decides them? Congress? The ATF? A judge?

      The Soviets used to deem mentally ill any one who disagreed with the “obvious benefits of communism’s workers’s paradise” and threw many freedom-loving capitalists into “rehabilitation” Gulags.

      Since these gun-grabbing socialist-minded statists are only one step away from communism, any freedom-loving capitalist could be a potential nutcase in their view and subject to disarmament.

      If you don’t believe me, just read Ms. Napolitano’s list of potential terrorists from a year or so ago!

      Respectfully, Arnie

      1. This is very true, but even so–it would be nice to see the Anti’s just *offering* such a thing, even if we get to reject it, or say “well, we’re pretty sure we can get CCW, but what about machine guns?” and watch them recoil in horror.

        This reminds me of a story in the Book of Mormon (which some regard as fiction, but I accept as scripture), where the Lamanites had control of one of the Nephite cities, and offered to trade prisoners. The Nephite captain said, “We’ll trade prisoners, but not for the city. We’re pretty sure that we can get the city on our own.” And then he took his army, and got that city, on his own.

        It’s nice to be in that kind of position, isn’t it? :-) Now let’s double-down our efforts, and maintain that position!

  3. “How about national CCW reciprocity in exchange tightening the control over those with serious mental health problems buying guns?”

    Because, the federal government controlling the regulation of anything imposed as “national reciprocity” (e.g., the reason we all have Photo ID drivers licenses, today) “serious mental health problems” would soon be defined in such a way that no one would have a CCW.

  4. I agree. Compromise is done on things that aren’t serious- like creating a car or planning a birthday party. Compromising on rights means you just give some pieces of them up.

    1. I always like how compromise is always considered a good thing. It gave us the House and the Senate, for example! Of course, it also gave us the 3/5 Compromise, where a slave was considered 3/5 of a freed person for taxation and representation…and which was one of the major factors that lead to the Civil War.

      We should keep in mind that compromise is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If people use it constructively, we get good things; if used destructively, we get bad things. We should always keep an eye out for both possible outcomes!

Comments are closed.