It couldn't last --- Russell Gallo is off the rails again with latest post in the "Brooklyn GOP Radio *Official* Show Blog"

The Friday, January 18, 2013 post "Compromise 101"  by Russell Gallo misses the point that "compromise" is how we got where we are

Sounding an awful lot like he was channeling Neville Chamberlain, Russell Gallo yesterday wrote, "While compromise is not always advisable especially when they [sic] involve core principles sometimes it is unavoidable...."  

Wrong !  That ignores the fact that one only needs to assert, and follow through on,  a simple principle  like, "There will be no compromise and no surrender..."  That's the difference between  somebody like Churchill and somebody like Chamberlain or Baldwin.

You see, Mr. Gallo went all over the lot  and  one can't follow because one can't make out where he started.  For example, look at what Gallo said is Prerequisite #2,  "...  If the bill introduced is unconstitutional, then vote against it."   That seems pretty straight forward;  would Gallo want us to compromise on that?  Presumably, one hopes, not --- or should that be --- hopefully, one presumes, not ? Actually, I'm less sure of Gallo's intent than my particular choice of words.

My consternation is not assuaged  when I see Russell Gallo advance premises such as this: "While it can be argued that states can legislate the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine it is an issue that can and should have been debated rationally and possibly compromised on in the end."  How does one compromise on whether "states can legislate the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine"?  Let's let that pass and move on since that's what Mr. Gallo did.

Gallo quickly moved to another complex  but flawed premise: "The Democrats want 7 rounds to be the maximum number allowed under the law in New York State. The federal government wants the limit to be 10. The NRA wants no limit....  NY's SAFE Act limits ALL magazines to 7 rounds for EVERYONE."  It is within the context of crafting a fix for the size magazines for police and accommodating  to  those competing "wants" and  "NY's SAFE Act limits" that Mr. Gallo seeks to fashion his compromise.  Why is any such compromise necessary ?   Nobody has explained why policemen and national guardsmen would have greater needs than the rest of the law abiding citizenry for larger capacity magazines.

Besides, even if  NY's SAFE Act were fixed by Gallo's great magazine compromise and a "middle [was achieved] that would make most people happy,"  it would not change a single fact about the NY SAFE Act's  being a very bad piece of legislation that violates New York's citizens' Second Amendment rights.