Fuck your "pro-life" anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-white privilege arguments.

[beevul]

143. Its a constitutional issue, on several levels.

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

First, government must have the authority at the federal level, to interfere in intra-state transactions (that is transactions within a states borders). It has not been granted such authority. States on the other hand, have such authority, but the constituents of most states seem not to be terribly interested in such things, come election time - the only "polls" that really matter.

Second, Speaking of registration: People already convicted of crimes can not be required by law to register weapons. See the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.

Third, since you mentioned the word "compromise"...Lets talk about how many of the pro-lots-more-control folks define that word, and have defined it since 1934. Compromise, as they define it, means only coming for half of what they want, then coming back next legislative session for the rest of it. That isn't compromise buddy. We - gun owners and pro-second amendment individuals - got nothing in return for the NFA of 1934. We got nothing in return for the gun control act of 1968. We got nothing in return for the brady bill in the 90s. Compromise is standing at opposite ends of a room and meeting halfway. Walking halfway across the room while they remain against the other wall is a concession, not a compromise. Your definition of the word "compromise" is akin to "I'll smack you in the face, but we'll compromise and I wont add a kick in the ass on top of it".

That might seem reasonable to you, but those on the receiving end of your "compromise" quite reasonably don't see it that way. The things pro-second amendment people have gained, were in spite of anti-gun folks, not because of any compromise with them. The moral of the story, is that the gun control folks need us, to implement anything. We on the other hand, do not need them. Think long and hard about that. Get the "gun violence prevention" crowd to come to the table with honey and some real compromise, rather than their 2-plus-decade old vinegar soaked anti-gun wish list, and maybe things will change.

Fourth, "the mildest of restrictive measures" is in the eye of the beholder. Bans on weapons that are responsible for less deaths nationwide than blunt injury deaths from hands and feet, for example. Waiting periods? A right delayed is a right denied. Some of us take our rights under the second amendment quite seriously. One gun a month? That's just dumb. Magazing capacity limits? No sir. The simple fact, is that other than the openly "ban them all" folks, not a single gun control poster here or supporter at large that I have ever seen interacted with or heard of, has ever been able and/or willing, to articulate just how much gun control is enough. Not a single one seems ready willing or able to identify the point at which they would stop banging the gun control drum. This adds to the already huge amount of distrust that they have earned themselves by their behavior and tactics. That's not on gun owners or second amendment supporters, Its on gun control proponents. They own that. In addition, the problem with many if not most of these so called "mildest of restrictions", is that they do not...can not...achieve any of the goals that those promoting them claim as their purpose. So many of them are gun control for the sake of gun control, proposed by people with a clear historic record of an anti-gun agenda. Let me know how many examples you need within reason, and I'll be happy to provide them.

Fifth, "draconian" measures are already here. See the registration requirement in CT, passed as an answer to a tragic crime which it will not...can not...prevent a repeat of. And, remember the part about convicted criminals being constitutionally protected from prosecution for not registering? Yeah. That means it isn't about criminals at all. And its all about rifles which are involved in less deaths every year than blunt trauma from hands and feet. That may not meet the definition of "draconian" to the "lots more gun control" folks, but to a whole lot of people it is. The glaring lack of participation in CTs registration scheme is proof that a large number of the people expected to comply see it as draconian.

Sixth, while every death is tragic, its no excuse to ignore reality or avoid getting some perspective. There are roughly 80 to 100 million gun owners in this nation. There are roughly ten thousand gun homicides annually. All the other gun deaths save a tiny number of accidents, are suicides. This is the point at which the gun control folks start shrieking their favorite strawman "Oh, so suicides don't matter, huh?". Nobody here, has ever said that. Suicides and homicides, even when the same implement is used, are different animals, which require different solutions, as opposed to one size fits all "gun control...gun control...gun control".

Finally, in addition to the existing distrust that the "gun violence prevention crowd" has earned for itself, not a one of them seem interested in any ways of reducing gun violence that don't include gun control. That calls their motives into question, without a doubt, like so many of the other things they propose.

My suggestion, is that if you want things to change, and people like me to come to the table, denounce and remove from the debate, the gun banners, the registrationists, and their ilk. Folks like me will not come to the table so long as they who are diametrically opposed to the exercise by us of our rights, are there. We have no interest in bargaining for how much of our pie they want this session, or making concessions which enable them to come back for another slice next session. We've played that game before, like I mentioned above, and its done nothing but further the agenda of those who are diametrically opposed to the exercise by us of our rights. That's a fact.

On edit: Heres an example of what I'm talking about. A poster characterizes those in opposition to the mostly ignored CT registration business, which deals with ONLY semi-automatic rifles, as "Second Amendment absolutists":

"Second Amendment absolutists are so oppressed and put upon by tyrannical governments that they are becoming absolutely distraught. They are in an absolute tizzy over these violations of their absolute right to "bear" any lethal weapon they so choose, anywhere, at anytime."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625974#post2

Are we really supposed to believe that folks with attitudes like this, who ignore what gun control we DO support, want any kind of "compromise" rather than a concession? Are we supposed to believe that they a conversation, rather than a monologue?


I don't think so.