It is time to put the NRA beyond the pale.

[OneCalorie]

55. Is there room for dissent and discourse on this site?

full disclosure - I like to think I am economically conservative, but socially- somewhat liberal. I do not support the republican planks with respect to women's rights, gay rights, etc. Basically - individual freedoms that I have no right to legislate to you, sort of like I don't believe you should be able to tell me if I can own a gun. - I am Republican.

Plaid Adder - this is the first time I've been to this site. and I apologize plaid adder, not meaning to call you out. But I have to say, your essay here is the stereotypical commentary re NRA and liberal politics. It is the Rush Limbaugh version on the liberal side - and by that I mean - it throws red meat to your fellow lions, but does little to actually move us collectively toward a better answer.

So here's some thoughts from a conservative on the subject of gun control. I won't repeat the typical laundry list , since you won't listen to it anyway. But consider this, a gun without ammo is a very poor excuse for a hammer. Ammo is readily available and fairly cheap. That includes reloading components (primer, powder, bullet, brass). We need tax revenue (that's another topic). Why not focus the argument on access to ammunition and cost of ammunition. The 2nd allows me to have my guns - whether you like it or not. But it doesn't say anything about cost. So , as others here have said, tax guns , ok, yes. But ammo , tax that heavily, like cigarettes. Control access via licensing, serialize the bullet base, etc.

I propose that the stereotypical liberal agenda re guns is misguided. It casts its net around far too many lawful citizens for it to gain wide acceptance. For effective answers, we collectively should consider activities which help us enforce lawful access, and conversely, help us identify and prevent unlawful. Traceable ammunition is one such concept that perhaps deserves an open dialog? Easy enough I think. All ammo already has identification stamped into its brass. This would just add more (to brass and bullet, you should know the difference if you intend to partake in the dialog) - and add cost of course - but that's part of the point. Once ammo has traceability, then it can be assigned to a licensed purchaser. Let me have my guns, but make me responsible for what comes out of them. Why you (collective liberals) have not grabbed on to this concept is beyond me - don't push for gun control, push for bullet responsibility. After all- it is the bullet that does the heart breaking damage.

It is an area where most conservatives and most democrats (I can't use the word liberal, as it derives from liberty - and that does not quite fit into a discussion of restricting rights, does it?) might agree - we all want gun violence to stop. You have your standard talking points, and I have mine. Let's find some new ones and start taking some positive action.

One final comment, free advice, no charge. When you start a lecturing essay (not this one, but many others I have read, including many talking heads on tv from your side) with "the gun was a bushmaster" and "just gotta have your Glock", and "the gun used was a "sig sour", and "we should immediately ban all automatic rifles" , - etc, etc. - you are telegraphing to those of us who understand firearms that you have not the first clue, that you have done no research whatsoever, and therefore, we make the rather legitimate leap to the conclusion that everything else you say on this topic will be likewise, misinformed. For some clues into this - bushmaster is one of a hundred manufacturers who produce basically the exact same weapon. The gun was an AR-15 in 5.56 caliber. Automatic weapons require the better part of a year to obtain (legally) - including finger prints, photographs, sign off by local law enforcement officer and Federal review. Very few people bother with this, Semi-automatic weapons, however, are quite popular. We do the same thing with silencers (an aside - in Britain, it is a requirement in most places that a silencer be used , to protect hearing and minimize disturbance. In the US - silencers suffer from movie ignorance and are highly regulated).

anyway - I am only hoping to start the discussion with an effort to find where we might agree. As opposed to each of us continuing to preach our talking points to our cheering base. Lest we be confused for congressmen.