Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What a novel idea! [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)(oh, and I didn't use the word "progressive" in that post, so why you'd mention not knowing what I meant by it is anyones guess)
Below is a quote of me from the post in question:
"Yes it is, because of decades of "meeting halfway". During that time, which those of us who value our rights where firearms are concerned, met the pro-more-control folks halfway, and got nothing. And like the sun rising in the morning, they came back next session for more."
In 1934, the nfa was passed, with pro-rights people including the nra meeting halfway, and nothing was given in return. The anti-gun folks came back numerous times, and in 1968 they got the gun control act passed. Nothing was given in return. After coming back year after year, in 1986 the NFA registry was closed. Nothing in return. In 1994 the so called "assault weapon ban" was passed based on lies, misconceptions, disinformation and misinformation. Nothing in return. In 97 the domestic abuser ban was passed. Nothing in return.
Now, that's about all the infringement I support, except I oppose the closing of the NFA. Dumb, doesn't save lives, simply a culture war poke in the eye for people who are nfa enthusiasts, and a blatant effort to make sure that future enthusiasts (opposition) were few and far between, and that's something (eliminating future opposition) that's never going to be allowed to happen again.
I measure gun rights/infringement on an objective scale. Totally unrestricted gun rights on one end, and total prohibition on the other. With the closure of the nfa registry, my view is that were around the 50/50 area, right in the middle, leaning slightly toward the total prohibition end of the scale. Every time we pro-rights folks meet the opposition "half way", they get some or all of what they want, and the scale slides closer to the side with total prohibition. You have to know all the restrictions that are in place, and know what was allowed before them, or else you can't use or criticize that scale accurately. I don't measure the issue with a body count, the same was as I don't measure my first amendment rights by how many have been trampled when someone incites a riot or screams fire in a theater. Particularly so, since there are numerous other non-gun-control ways to lower and prevent gun violence. I view the issue through the rights lens, how much I feel a "basic right" has been infringed on.
Anti-gun vs pro-gun. Its quite simple. You might feel you're not on either side, and that's fine, though I don't see it that way.
That's your position. My position is issue centric. I'm glad to see anyone fight for rights where people and guns are concerned, and I detest anyone that fights against gun rights. I don't care what so ever, what party someone is from when they do either of he above. Kinda the same as with the WOD or abortion. I don't care what party someone belongs to when they oppose the WOD or support abortion choice. Why should I? Doing the right thing is doing the right thing. If you want to put parties before issues, go ahead, but expecting anyone else to is unrealistic.
Basic rights. I suspect you and I define them differently, and I far more broadly than you.
Theres plenty of discussion to be had, but it can't be had unless we talk about where were at on that scale I mentioned above, and how we got to where we are on that scale. Otherwise its just a relativistic jerk off session.
In other words, if I'm not willing to give in on more restrictions, theres no discussion to be had. So much for meeting "half way". What you want, is for gun rights supporters to walk all the way to your position as a starting point, (or else theres nothing to discuss) then you want to talk about what gun related "solutions" might be appropriate.
Why didn't you just say it simple and easy?
My position, is this:
For decades, the pro-rights camp was playing defense, trying to stop this and that, while the anti-gun folks marched down the field and scored a number of times. Yeah, they didn't score a lot of the time, and its a good thing, because many of the things they pushed were nuts.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the anti-gun folks are playing defense, and they've been shackled with numerous court defeats which uphold gun rights, and between the two its slowed them down.
Good.
As long as they're defending, it will be much harder to pull that scale any farther toward total prohibition.
That still leaves plenty of room to tackle gun violence for those that are more interested in stopping gun violence than the means employed to stop it. Anyone who says otherwise, just wants to go after guns and ignore the other means of attacking it.