Incredibly, there are still people in the outdoor and shooting sports community who are attempting to remain apolitical. They shy away from definitive terms like liberal or conservative. These folks still believe that, if you just try hard enough, you can win a logical argument with people whose decisions are driven by emotion. I’ve been scolded and advised not to “provoke” the anti-gun crowd, those who wish to disarm lawful American citizens. We need to be reasonable and willing to compromise I’ve been told . . .

I will admit that I understand the origins of what I call the “reasonableness disease”; it stems from Mirror Thinking. Humans at their base level all believe that everyone else in the world think and behave as they do. If they consider themselves a reasonable, rational person then they expect all other people to act the same.  While this type of thinking is childish and naïve, it’s nonetheless very prevalent, particularly among those who would rather not deal with problems head on but sidestep them.

Let me set the record straight, as least as far as I am concerned: if you are a person who is actively lobbying a government agency, be it Local, State, or Federal to restrict the ownership of firearms by lawful citizens of the United States you are endangering myself as an individual, my family, my community, and by extension my country.

In 2013 the tool most readily used to protect the individual from violence, oppression and tyranny is the firearm. Hundreds of years ago governments worldwide outlawed the possession of swords by the peasant to ensure they paid their taxes and obeyed whichever ruler sat in power. The issue is the same; disarm the peasants so they can be ruled.

When you actively seek to disarm me you are deliberately attempting to subjugate me and put my family in mortal jeopardy — that fact makes you my enemy. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States did not create the rights of man; it simply enumerated and affirmed them. When you seek to nullify or circumvent the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitutions of each individual State, you are my enemy.

Pretending that your enemy doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. Ignoring your enemy only gives them the time and opportunity to strengthen their position and deliver their final blow. Attempting to argue logic with a man ruled by emotion is no more productive than attempting to teach Latin to a hog. It wastes your time and annoys the hog.

I’m reminded of on apt analogy of compromise. A burglar breaks into a home and demands that the homeowner give him all of his money. The homeowner stubbornly refuses. The burglar then demands ninety percent of the owner’s money. The homeowner again will not comply. Now the burglar demands half of the owner’s money. Again he refuses to hand over a penny. “You just won’t compromise on anything will you?” the frustrated burglar says accusingly.

How do you bargain with someone who wishes to endanger your family? How do you compromise with a person who seeks to subjugate you and nullify your God-given right to protect your life? In what manner should you negotiate with a group of people who seek to circumvent and make irrelevant the foundational document that has made the United States of America the greatest and most prosperous nation ever to grace this world?

The answer is; you don’t.  No bargaining, no negotiation, and no compromise.  The enemy is the enemy and the sooner you accept that fact the better equipped you will be to defeat them.

Paul Markel © 2013

About the Author

Paul Markel has been a firearms industry writer for twenty years and is the author of the new book “Student of the Gun; A beginner once, a student for life.”  Paul hosts and produces “Student of the Gun” a show dedicated to education, experience, and enjoyment of firearms. Episodes of SOTG can be viewed by simply going to and clicking the “play” icon.



  1. The firearm blog is one of them, they refuse to address their followers to take actions. Any firearm related business/blog/store should be obligated to address visitors/customers and ask them to take actions to protect the 2nd Amendment.

  2. HOORAY!! Great piece. Let’s see… they aim to destroy my world and all I have dear. I wonder what a “moderate” response might be?

    NAH. “Violence is NEVER the answer.” Many people have heard THAT before. Most of them are dead, or enslaved.

    “Ah,” you say. “How bad could enslavement BE? Be REASONABLE!”

    THIS bad: DEAD.

  3. This week, there have been shootings in NM, TX an KY. Why is news like that not being covered here at TTAG? I believe reports like that would make for a more balanced site and would put things like the ethics and morality of guns in a more balanced perspective.

    • There’s shootings every day in strict gun-control cities. If TTAG followed all those there would be no room for anything else.

      Hell the MSM doesn’t even cover them. Unless they involve white folks.

    • “Hauptgefreiter” is a classic example of a left-wing troll and a perfect representation of how they think. This fool actually said to himself, “Hmmm, how can I best camouflage myself to blend in with this barbaric tribe? Well, they’re all neo-Nazis, so perhaps a pseudonym appropriate to a German soldier of World War II will gain their trust… Either that or ‘Negroh8tr’… I’ll run it by the other fellows at the co-op and see what they think…”

    • Last week, the governor of my state used emergency powers to have introduced legislation, in the middle of the night, that defied natural law and effectively made me a criminal. There are no words strong enough – no matter their tone, screamed or whispered – that can penetrate your illogic nor describe how I perceive this affront. The government of my state IS my enemy. Your call to distract my attention toward this tragedy, or that shooting, while my enemy plots my enslavement, puts you squarely on the side of the enemy.

    • There is no such thing as “the ethics and morality of guns”. Ethics and morality are traits that can only be used to describe people. If you want to discuss the morality and ethics of the people using firearms for ill that is one thing. If you want to discuss the cultural and environmental conditions that lead people to misuse firearms that’s also fine. But if you want to personify an inanimate object and somehow suggest that a person is evil because of the availability of firearms, well then thats ridiculous. Theft, murder, rape, robbery, evil, war; these are all concepts that existed long before the invention of firearms. Firearms have nothing to do with their existence. Its impossible to think that with any sort of credible rationale. They are merely the most convenient tool with which to perpetrate them. That being said, removing firearms from the equation doesn’t solve the problem. It just causes people to revert to the second most convenient tool, that is IF you can even effectively remove the first, which you can’t.

    • Balance is compromise in such a context. Americans get hit up all the time with unbalance by the MSM. This site does report murders using guns. It would lose its value by seeking to ‘change’ to some moderate political rag trying to be friends with and respect everyone.

    • Herr Hauptgefreiter, anti-freedom nuts might not be clinically insane, but I would consider the possobility with this insane idea that a sign on the side of a building with a circle and slash over a gun will keep out a homicidal maniac with a gun, especially when all evidence to the contrary proves otherwise.

      You see, if I compromise and give up more of my freedom for a solution proven to be completely ineffectual in stopping a mad man with a gun, like an AWB, that would not only facilitate more of my freedoms being taken away, it would empower homicidal maniacs to kill more people, it would validate a belief system based on delusion and denial, leading to bigger government leading to tyranny, dictatorship and mass death.

      In other words Herr Hauptgefrieter, you might be crazy, but I’m not.

    • Haup: You’ve been sniffed out, libtard. You can go ahead and kill yourself, but let us who wish to remain alive, be rid of your presense, by you going away.

    • “Fair and balanced”? Why don’t you go to FOX NEWS? Next you’ll want us to give equal time to the “other side”. SCREW THAT. We already have Mikey Numbers. Unfortunately. He’s a good sort… FOR A TAPEWORM.

      Let me see…. the friend of my enemy is my… WHAT?

  4. I agree 100% People keep telling me we need to expand our support. Liberal vs Conservative is a losing arguement they say, as there are liberals who like guns too. The problem with that is that liberals will always abandon you win you need them the most. The Party always comes first. So why waste my time and energy trying to get them join our fight, when they will roll over on you the minute their leaders crack the whip? Gun control is pure politics, the left wishes to disarm us, the right does not.

    • Full disclosure: there are liberals here. Gun-owning ones. Are we supposed to invite Chuckie Schumer, the Oleaginous One?

      • I know there are liberals here. I know there are a lot of liberals who like guns. But when the rubber meets the road, they don’t vote freedom first. If they vote for the very people who want to disarm us, who gives a f*ck how about how much they like guns?

      • ALL the people who who are trying to take away our freedom (firearms) and thus, our Republic, are of the liberal persuasion.

    • I am a liberal. The founders were liberals.

      Liberalism is the idea of maximizing individual liberty. Liberal and liberty have the same root word: liber.

      Today’s political leftists seek to dress themselves up as liberals, but they are not; they are leftists. Wanting to be called liberals is just one more way in which they try to dominate the political landscape by controlling the way we use language.

  5. I am not trolling. My question is serious. A hallmark of good journalism is objective unbiased presentation of news. It should be up to the reader to decide what to read. The good thing about sites like TTAG is that they deliver a counterbalance to the mainstream media. But what good is it, if a site is biased in reporting only articles that support one side of the story?

    • Our originol exchange and the one with anonymous got cut. But short answer in my opinion. This isn’t a news site. It’s a progun site. Farago is under no obligation to discuss every gun related incident nation wide.

      And are you a real lance corporal?

      • Yes, I am a real lance corporal. Robert Farago explores the ethics and morality of guns. How can you have a one-sided ethics or morality? And how come that someone deviates from the mainstream opinion here, points something out and is branded a fake or a troll?

        • Did you not see our post on gun show NDs this weekend? Or our IGOTD posts? Or Nick’s report that Fox News’ poll shows a great deal of public support for universal background checks on all gun purchases? I’ll let you dig ‘em up.

        • Haup: You must have been stunned at the ease at which you were sniffed out.
          Do you love us despite our imbred, trailer trash ways?
          Please, use the full power and tender mercies of a wiser, larger and more powerful state to remove these baby killing instruments from our ignorant paws. You know us better than we do, dont you.

    • The main problem, at least as far as I can see it, is manpower and topic-saturation. TTAG simply doesn’t have enough writers to cover every single gun-related event, and at the moment the focus is on combating disarmament and their articles reflect that. In any other climate I bet we’d be a lot more likely to see articles of the events you describe, but at present I really doubt they want to funnel their very limited resources into something that might make their readers even more exhausted than they already are. If you really care about people learning about that stuff, post the links to people covering it yourself, at least then you manage to spread word about it.

    • This isn’t a journalistic enterprise. It is a GUN BLOG. If you want hard straight news, go read the New York Times.

      (yes, that was a joke)

    • You make an argument for balance, which is fine.
      I agree there should be balance, but at what scale
      are you referring to? Should balance be at every
      level from major outlets to one man blog? Or does
      balance only have to be at a national news level?
      How do you feel about larger news organization
      such as MSNBC, CBS and CNN? As many on this
      site may agree, TTAG would have to proactively
      mail out tinfoil hats to counter some of the
      “arguments” played in a large portion of the media.

      Do you advocate the limiting of the 1st Amendment
      to enforce a balance? Who gets to decide when
      a topic is or is not balanced? Does one have to
      engage absurd notions in the interest of balance?
      Do I have to accept an opposing viewpoint if it is
      not based on factual evidence? For example, if I
      say the earth is round, do I have to address those
      that believe in a flat earth? Would a flat earth
      theory hold as much relevance without facts?
      At what point does the opposing view get

  6. Like Benny Hill said, who goes there? friend or enema. I wish s bradys followers could see the lady for who she really is, Randy

  7. I don’t particularly like the politics talk. It is mostly taking complex views and replacing them with stereotypes. Republicans voted in New York for their AWB too. Once you assign political party affiliation you assign party lines as well that remove individual thought. I don’t care what party you represent, where you are from, your skin color, income level, what car you drive; if you want to take away my second amendment right you are my enemy, and lately there have been more enemies in the news than allies.

    Unfortunately, there is a double standard in this entire debate. The media can name-call and slander all they want, but as soon as the pro-gun side does the same we will lose credibility. We are in a losing fight of emotion vs facts, when relying on facts we must always remain calm and collected, if we become emotional we’re entering their realm and can’t possibly win.

    Replacing independent thought with party lines is what has allowed for this situation in the first place and allows it to continue; if people were to actually do any kind of research they’d see none of these anti-gun measures will accomplish anything and that disarmament will only bring more crime and put everyone in danger (like Cambodia and the UK). In addition, minimizing your opponent and not taking their arguments seriously will escalate conflict and degrade our reputation. Even though they may be (and usually are) wrong on every point we can’t just use their tactics and refuse to listen and scream “you’re wrong” again and again, we have to show them they are wrong and hopefully they are willing to accept the reality. The problem in all this is that some, from all parties, are so stuck in their paradigms they are unwilling to accept reality. It is frustrating, but we can’t afford to degrade the perception of our supporters, most already seem to think we’re backwater hicks harboring moonshine and illegal guns, we need to rise above that first.

    Think more Cpl. Joshua Boston and less James Yaeger (even though he did apologize) and we might just change some minds.

    μολὼν λαβέ,

    • Of course reason will be used. But we must also use EMOTION, just like the libtards. Warfare is a total thing. All must vote appropriately in 14′ and 16′ to hold those from either party accountable (alot of dem heads should roll). Alot of morons thought and said Barry would not do what he did.
      Lesson learned (or it damn well should have been).

  8. Well In my opinion the real issue is not guns or bullets. The issue is simply that not every person should have the right to own a gun, e.g. criminals, minors and mental health patients. However, gun advocates and liberals alike are so extreme and paranoid in their views that any real discussion just ends in personal attacks and slander. Because people that are being fed an opinion, people that are too lazy to think for themselves, people that are too afraid to take on an opinion that defies the general consensus, will always be divided.

    • They can’t. None of those groups can own guns as it is now. Every one of these tragic incidents has occurred because the current regulations are violated. You cannot regulate actions that are committed outside the law.

      Woher kommst du wieder?

    • Mental health patients? really? I hope what you meant was serious mental problems. This will be one of the sticking points as the bradys will want to start with everyone taking a mild tranquilizer, Randy

  9. Excellent…most excellent. I wholeheartedly agree…there is no “compromise” with the anit-gun crowd. Thier aim is to eliminate firearms alltogether.

  10. Gov Cumo looks like a defiant determined Mussolini with his fist and jaw clenched. Joe Biden has also been doing lots of clenched fists lately. It must be a new Democrat manly-macho tactic.

  11. At the end of the day, gay, straight, white, black, latino, asian. female, liberal, conservative, or for that matter-WHATEVER. the common thread that unites us all is the possession and love of firearms. whether they be pistols, revolvers, ak’s, ar’s, sks’s, 1911s or for that matter any other style, brand or type. We are all in this battle together, or not. if we decide to segregate ourselves according to our politics or dislikes of certain political entities, we will be doomed to failure. this is a UNIVERSAL fight for ALL gunfolks. Lets see if we can find the unity that does not elude the haters. DON’T LET THEM WIN……..MOLON LABE……….

  12. People who think {choose one: “war”, “violence”, “fighting”} is not the answer simply don’t understand the question.

    The question it answers is this: “What do you do when faced with an implacable enemy bent on {choose one: “your total destruction?”, “killing you”, “beating you to a pulp”}.

  13. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States did not create the rights of man; it simply enumerated and affirmed them.

    @Paul: The 9th Amendment clarifies that the Bill of Rights is not to be limited to those enumerated. That is, the Bill of Rights is not intended to be an enumeration (limit) of our rights. I believe you understand that, but I think your statement above could have been worded better.

  14. Got Jews. Got trailer trash. What about gypsies? What about slavs? You seem to be a couple of convenient scapegoats shy of a master race, buddy.

  15. There is no compromise when the anti types don’t include any of an opposing view in the discussion ie: NJ bill heading to committee S2430.
    The rights you choose to compromise on they would prefer WE never have.

  16. As I read this article for the third time so I can understand and feel the thought and feelings of the writer I was reminded each time of a quote said, I think by President Reagan; I could be wrong on the person but it was a USA President. We the people of the United States of America will not negotiate with any terrorist.

    As I think of the people here in the USA that are trying to alter our constitution with laws that have been proven in country after country to NOT work the way they thought; all I can think of them as terrorists. Now as I think back to the oath I made 3 times when I enlisted and reenlisted into the Navy I am reminded part of it. I will up hold and protect the constitution of the United States of America for enemies foreign and domestic. Now, I am left with the questions of what am I to do? I feel, as many others do, that our country is under attack from terrorists that are inside our boarders. How am I to act or react or what am I to do; apprehend them via civilian arrest and turn them over to the authorities; sadly many of the authorities are on their side and are likely to turn on me. However I have been discharged from the Navy and am considered a disabled vet so realistically I think I have been discharged from my oath even though deep down I still feel my oath as strongly today as I did back in the late 90’s.

    On the other hand those people I would consider terrorists would or do consider me as a poor disabled vet who has had their mind torn apart by my experiences over sea’s while I was in service. So, because of that I am not to be trusted, not with guns, or even my own opinion. There for my idea/opinions don’t count because I take medication for depression and PTSD. I am a potential danger to everyone including myself. So I can’t even be trusted to choose my own TV show to drool to as I should be heavily medicated. Not only does this sadden me but it also makes me feel insulted.

    These people who wish to limit access to arms for what ever reason it’s in truth because they have no bloody idea what is going on. They don’t know what is going on in their own town/state/country or the world, in most of the time they don’t even know what is going on in their own home, with their own family, with their own children. How are we to deal with people who go through life with the blinders of the media and corrupt politicians? Are these people the majority or just the loudest of the lemurs that wish to take away and control our lives. Their lives are not good enough for them to mess up they feel they have to mess up ours, mine?

    I can understand for most this is an extremely exhausting but for those of us who have given our families, friends, limbs, and/or even our lives have an extra drain. Our sacrifices where for and in-favor of the everyone’s rights and these people or terrorist’s depending on how you wish to look at it are working to take away what little of our lives we have left. How do you pick your life back up and start over while these people terrorist and walk on our sacrifices and lives as if we are peasants or sub-human, we are treated worst then the family dog. LOL, and these same morons have the gall to wonder why military and former military have such a high suicide rate. I must apologize it has been a long day and I am tiered. I think I’ve already said to much.

    I just hope this does not go toward blood shed because 3 wars are more then enough for one soldier or sailor to live through.

  17. I just would like to be left alone.I haven’t ever thought of pulling an armed stickup or mowing down people I don’t even know.What does get me going is meddlers.They just can’t leave things be.They have to fix what isn’t broken.They have come out of the woodwork with seething hatred for gun owners.They may find out that it’s dumb to threaten people who are armed.

  18. We should not only be resisting, even at this late date, but should be counter-attacking. I wish the NRA (at least) and some GOP Reps and Senators would propose:

    1)Abolition of the 1968 GCA
    2)Direct firearms shipments allowed to any licensed CCW in any state.
    3)Handgun purchases allowed to the above across state lines.
    4)Put all modern replica firearms under the BATF’s 50-year rule.

    OK, we’ll “compromise” and accept that the licensed CCW holder will have to fill out a 4473 – small steps, small steps.

    These proposals with give the antis apoplexy. They won’t be able to just sit around and wait for us to “give just a little”. If they can through stuff at the walls to see what sticks, we can too.

    Maybe if they realize our side will ALWAYS come back with our own hair-raising (to them) proposals, instead of giving in, they might think twice the next time.

    • It’d be amusing to see a legislator systematically go through and file a bill to repeal basically every gun law on the books. Individually, I mean. Kinda like how some of them are filing bills that contain the individual components of DiFi’s AWB.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here