The founding fathers were decidedly all or nothing. Maybe a lack of that attitude is the problem. "Give me liberty or give me death."
I can see your point. It's easier to take an inch than a mile. However, to advocate for permit reciprocity means that you must, in some capacity, concede that permits are appropriate.
One could argue that such concessions further ingrain permit legislation and effectively creates another barrier for constitutional carry.
No , I accept the reality based fact that when I go a half mile one way I am a potential felon , where I am legal going any of the other directions for hours upon hours.
Fighting for all or nothing is nice when you expect nothing. I can't even get an inch, so I'll take the inch if its given, becuase it is at least an inch more than I had.
I can even argue the ones saying all or nothing, truly do not support it and actually want nothing, or they would be willing to accept whatever inroads can be made. How do you think the jews eroded our rights in the first place? We can't reasonably expect to put them back all at once. Anyone who thinks so is a fool in my opinion, based upon eons of history.
I accept the reality based fact that when I go a half mile one way I am a potential felon , where I am legal going any of the other directions for hours upon hours.
I agree that this is the state of things, and that it's untenable.
Fighting for all or nothing is nice when you expect nothing.
Would you care to elaborate? Do you mean a last strand in the face of certain defeat? Is that the only time it's appropriate to refuse compromise?
I can't even get an inch, so I'll take the inch if its given, becuase it is at least an inch more than I had.
What?
How do you think the jews eroded our rights in the first place?
By way of compromise after compromise.
We can't reasonably expect to put them back all at once.
I would again point to events like the American revolution. There is historical precedent for fruitful 'all or nothing' endeavors.
Anyone who thinks so is a fool in my opinion, based upon eons of history.
Alright, now you're just being a pretentious faggot. If eons of history support your ideas, then provide examples and articulate your point.
I maintain a healthy level of skepticism for my own positions. I could be wrong about anything, and need to remain open to logical arguments.
From what I've gathered, your argument seems to be 'The erosion of our rights was a gradual process. Therefore the process of liberation must likewise be gradual.' I would disagree, and argue these things are not mutually exclusive.
It's either gradual back or War. I'm not going to quote historical examples, that's a time wasting exercise.