Paper: I Know, Let’s Compromise Our Rights Away!
-By Warner Todd Huston
Columnist Tom Eblen of the Lexington, Kentucky Herald-Leader has proven to the world that he doesn’t know what a “right” is. He thinks it is something that you can “compromise” over. He thinks it is something that can be endlessly tinkered with. He seems not to realize that a “right” is something that is supposed to be insoluble, unchangeable, permanent. Worse, he has equated an American right to the horse raising industry as if the business decisions made by a handful of ranchers is somehow comparable to the observance and maintenance of our rights. Ridiculously he says that if we don’t compromise this one right, our 2nd Amendment right, it will be taken away. And hypocritically, after using fear to urge us to compromise, he accuses those of us interested in safeguarding the 2nd Amendment of using “fear” tactics.
This latest op ed, “NRA’s slippery slope full of holes,” was the result of some flack he took for touting the existence of a small gun owner’s organization that many NRA members claim is a front group for an anti-gun group. He wrote admiringly about this small group and was assailed by emails and messages informing him that he was giving support to a stealth gun grabbing group and, instead of checking out the group more thoroughly, these emails seemed to set Eblen off. Typical of a self-righteous denizen of the media, instead of finding out if the complaint letters were right and reassessing his original support, Eblen merely lashed out at 2nd Amendment supporters who alerted him to his mistake. (In fact, Eblen doesn’t even bother to try to find out more about the small gun group he wrote about before merely blowing off his obligation to be informed about what he writes.)
So, off Eblen goes wagging his finger at 2nd Amendment supporters telling them that their “hard-line views” and their use of “fear” to sell gun rights is the wrong track to take. He particularly focuses on the fear aspect, claiming that this is an illegitimate way to advocate for our rights. But, even as he claims the NRA illegitimately uses “fear” he uses fear himself to claim that if we don’t compromise our rights away we will lose all of them.
If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their “cold, dead fingers,” eventually somebody’s going to do it.
If that isn’t using fear to sell his own point, what is?
Eblen tells us that we just have to understand, guns are dangerous, so we must “compromise.”
But gun violence and crime are serious problems. The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.
Without some intelligent compromises, each new tragedy, like the Virginia Tech or Columbine massacres, will prompt more emotional calls for banning guns. All guns. There are zealots on both sides.
And he has found the perfect example, he thinks, to show us the way: the “horse industry.”
The NRA and other gun groups could learn something from the horse industry.
High-profile deaths of horses in Thoroughbred racing and eventing have created some public backlash against those sports. Rather than stonewall, though, horse industry leaders are aggressively working to make their sports safer. They love horses, sure, but they also realize that their sports could live or die with public opinion.
Have you ever heard anything so ignorant as this? Imagine, to compare the maintenance of a Constitutional right to raising horses? Would Eblen think that comparing abortion to gardening would be an apt comparison? How about if we compare a discussion of the death penalty to punishment for small time retail theft? Would these have any sensible relation one to the other? I’ll answer for you, Mr. Eblen… NO is your answer.
The discussion of our Constitutional rights is in such a different class of import that comparing the “horse industry” to the policies concerning the 2nd Amendment is as absurd, simple-minded, and just off track as can be imagined.
So, to wrap up his bad analysis and his casual treatment of our rights, Eblen assures us that all will be well if only we just forget about all this standing up for our principles business.
As society becomes more diverse, we must regain the lost art of compromise. Otherwise, we’ll never be able to deal with complex problems in ways that protect everyone’s rights. Polarization may be good for special-interest groups and political parties, but it’s bad for America.
But there is a great flaw in Eblen’s little argument, here. You see, the 2nd Amendment isn’t just a law that we can change at will, compromise over repeatedly, and do away with if it is inconvenient.
You see, the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right, not just an average, everyday law.
Let me put it this way: should we compromise on who should be allowed to vote? How about property rights, should we easily give away our rights to be secure in our property? Maybe the right to a speedy trial isn’t so important? How about all that “pursuit of happiness” stuff? Is that all fluff and nonsense, too, Mr. Eblen? What other rights do you think we should so easily disregard as insoluble? What other rights do you think aren’t important enough to maintain as unbreakable?
One does not negotiate away one’s rights, Mr. Eblen. Rights are given to us by our creator and the 2nd Amendment is just as much a right as any. You need, Mr. Eblen, to learn what the right to self protection means before you so casually cast it aside to achieve that supposed safety you desire. When Ben Franklin was heard to tell his fellow Americans that we had a republic if we could keep it, he was talking to you, Mr. Eblen. He was telling you not to throw away your rights to achieve just a little safety.
In fact, Ben Franklin also addressed the “safety” question.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
You are obviously not listening, Mr. Eblen. Let us hope no one is listening to you, as well.
| More from Warner Todd Huston
Stumble It!



June 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Eblen assures us that all will be well if only we just forget about all this standing up for our principles business.
Anyone who won’t stand up for his principles doesn’t have any.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I find it both humorous and very sad to see conservatives talk about losing our rights-especially the baby boomer variety. Some slow learners who consider themselves columnists (and I’m not talking about you Warner) here at MND cannot see that it was the baby boomer men who have thrown men under the bus for almost 4 decades. Silence in the face of the systematic elimination of rights, justice, and due process for being male in America. The chivalrists are worse than the manginas. Now that MND is transforming into a right of center malcontent news organization we will be hearing about gun ownership rights, PC thought control (glad to see the right of center malcontents finally catching up on this one), and the usual cadre of whining. There has never been a source for putting light on the lies of feminism (THE dominating source and conduit of marxism in America) other than MND and http://www.angryharry.com. But…yawn….the right is as stupid as the left is dishonest at admitting that the primary cause of the downward spiral of America is feminism.
I got principles. Big time.
I just don’t have patience for slow and dim-witted people.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 am
More guns equals less crime.
These massacres that her speaks of occurred exactly because the perpetrator knew that no-one in these places was armed and there was nothing to stop them.
A well armed society is a polite society.
America needs more guns, not less.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Don’t expect those advocating for gun control to make distinctions between rights and privileges. They don’t understand whence rights come: God. Yes, I understand there are many who won’t understand what I just said, but it can’t be explained on a bumper sticker, which is only what those minds can digest.
It has been supported by hard fact: More guns equals less crime. For those uncomfortable with thinking, this makes no sense. After all, Columbine et. al… ? Here’s the answer. A broken legal system that does not punish parents for the actions of their children (before the incidents there were incidents), that encourages the non-fix of psychiatrist and prozac, and a society that teaches the valulessness and Godlessness of life in its public schools will reap exactly what you’d expect.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Denis,
The subject at hand is some idiot “journalist” who has no clue what the Second Amendment is for and who let’s his personal bias keep him from being an honest journalist.
Why are you babbling like an idiot over feminist gains over 40 years? Gun rights have been under attack since the 30s.
“Don’t expect those advocating for gun control to make distinctions between rights and privileges.”
jjtaup
I must disagree, somewhat.
The folks advocating more gun control have been trying for years to redefine what gun rights are.
Since the 70’s (at least) it’s been turned into a discussion about “sportsmen”.
In the 90’s, when Handgun Control Inc. changed it’s name to gain political credibility, Liberals started the process of redefining what The People and the Militia meant.
Suddenly The People meant The Government for the second Amendment and The People meant the citizenry (perhaps to include illegal aliens and enemy combatants) for every other Right.
Admittedly, even the First Amendment is not sacrosanct for Liberals. But other things that are not even priveleges, they treat like sacred Rights.
I guess my point is that they really do distinguish between rights and priveleges, they just redefine which is which to suit their needs while completely ignoring the Constitution.
As for seeing God’s role, look at Obama’s God:
Obama was, until a couple of days ago, a member of TUCC.
Pastor Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology, here’s one of the founding minds behind it:
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
A Black Theology of Liberation By James H. Cone 1990
Note the grammar.
“a God” “Gods”
Plural
Makes it a lot easier if you have a pantheon to pick from, eh?
Of course, there’s also the blatant and clear message of hate.