Posted on 12/07/2015 5:20:51 AM PST by Kaslin
While I am a proponent of gun rights for Americans I have never been opposed to there being a reasonable conversation between differing sides on this contentious issue. Unfortunately with our extremely polarized nation, not just on gun issues but on just about everything, a reasonable conversation isn't going to happen very soon.
If a Republican says "the sky is blue," a Democrat is more than likely going to argue that "the sky isn't blue, it's light blue." Our political parties simply cannot agree with each other on even the smallest, least controversial issue. To do so in their minds would be to concede some sort of political advantage it would seem.
Both sides of every issue just scream back and forth at each other that 'it's my way or the highway.' They are never able to agree on anything without threats and intimidation, and bringing government right up to the precipice before they work out some temporary fix that never really solves a problem, only pushes it farther down the road.
And I certainly am not interested in leaving something so important and monumental as "gun control" up to the career politicians in Washington, D.C. to make the decision for me as to what kind of, or how many firearms I may possess. With all the money and lobbyists out there politicians simply can't be trusted to do what's right for the American people.
Realistically the only thing that might reduce the number of deaths as a result of firearms would be a complete and total ban on gun ownership in America, requiring voluntary surrender of guns by all citizens, along with a robust confiscation effort by law enforcement. There's about as much of a chance of that happening as there is of getting a pot-head to give up his dope stash. And the war on drugs so far has been a dismal failure.
Which begs the question since the Mexican drug cartels easily and successfully smuggle tons of drugs into the United States annually, does anyone think they won't be able to just as easily smuggle tons of guns and ammunition across our porous southern border into the heart of America? Chicago perhaps? As far as the Mexican cartels are concerned they could really care less about any carnage on the streets of America, it's all about the Benjamins to them.
But who is likely to be the primary customer of the Mexican cartels smuggled guns and ammo, the suburbanite who just wants a simple handgun to help him protect his family in a more and more dangerous world? The young woman who drives through a tough neighborhood to get to work and wants the means to keep the predators at bay? Or the gang banger who just wants to shoot up his neighborhood? I think we all know who the main customer would be.
Under Barack Obama and his Democrat allies 'perfect solution' Americans clearly might be disarmed, at least the law abiding ones anyway. But American inner cities certainly won't be pacified and will be just as dangerous as they are now.
Which by the way if you subtracted the gun violence statistics of American inner cities from the annual stats, the U.S. would fall somewhere around Iceland or Japan's annual gun homicide rate, which is near the bottom of the list of nations. It seems most gun violence occurs in America's inner cities, the overwhelming vast majority of which are governed by, you guessed it, Democrats.
As for my solution to the problem of gun violence in America I think I'm more inclined to look at bringing back 'Marksmanship and Firearm Safety' to our school's curriculums, as they once were. Young people were taught to respect firearms, how to safely handle them, and to shoot competitively at targets, not to take pot-shots at their fellow man.
Which also brings to mind the need for a return to more traditional character and morality building as a means of reducing gun violence in America. When young people are taught to respect other people's property and rights, along with respecting the gift of life itself, the chances of successfully reducing gun violence in America would be much better I think.
Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely that the Democrats in Washington will go along with anything that smacks of "traditional values and morality" or common sense firearms education, since as progressives they are more interested in tearing down the character and soul of this nation, and "fundamentally transforming" it into something entirely unrecognizable to most Americans.
Even this won't work. With a simple lathe/mill machine, or plans and a 3D printer, I can make a firearm in my garage. Unless you can un-invent guns, confiscation will only effect the law abiding.
“””””A Reasonable Conversation About Guns?””””””
Sure, my family has one about once a week over the dinner table or family BBQ.
“Bought any new weapons lately?”
“Are you still reloading? Cause I need some 30-06.”
“I bagged a medium sized buck yesterday... we gonna have a deer sausage breakfast next Sunday... ya’ll coming?”
“Have you seen the new Kimber? oh man...”
“We still going hunting Christams morning?... cause I got a new 300blackout... wait till you see it.”
We have conversations about guns all the time.
Not possible. There is no common ground between the two sides to converse on.
You shouldn’t have.
We need to control the conversation. Fat chance, I know. But to just give up and let the liberals get away with their lies is not very constructive.
the guy who taught my CCW class a retired LEO, said the exact same thing.
either NO one has them... i.e. the elitists, bozo bodyguards, etc....or EVERYONE has them.
The 21st. century Democrat Party has gone Full Alinsky.
It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them about ANYTHING.
The “conversation” was over a long time ago when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment) were passed and ratified.
Or in the terminology of the left...”it’s settled law”.
After the liberals agree to “reasonable” limits on abortion.
This will help establish their definition of “reasonable”.
Aren’t they always attempting to demonstrate how severe conservatives are, because we won’t consider cases of rape and incest?
Let’s ask them to change the law to ONLY cases of rape and incest and see if they sign up.
We are winning all the arguments about Gun Rights.
No surrender.
No negotiation.
On to victory!
I stopped reading because of the implicit assumption that Liberals are reasonable.
They are not.
As such, the idea that one can have a reasonable conversation with a Liberal about anything is a time-wasting fantasy.
Reasonable? Reasonable would be about the need to encourage cReying and ending gun free zones, also fostering more training since training is part of the exercise of the right in the 2nd amendment.
That reasonable? Or the other way reasonable? ie smart guns dispensing people from training, ban on semi autos that would prevent grandma from access to firearms etc?
What do these idiots define as reasonable, using the liberal rhetoric?
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask Obama why he armed cartels with stolen guns while insisting at the UN to keep Mexicans disarmed and murdered?
No, I guess this is not reasonable to question the powers, as it is not reasonable to ask whether Obama is blackmailing the ATF for having participated in genocide or other RINOs like McCain for arming thugs in Syria...
That is what would be reasonable subjects to broach before going on “reasonable” gun legislation
This is getting old.
STOP IT!!!
Bingo. Liberals are predatorial trolls. They never comment on the subject, always commenting and attacking the commenter, sidetracking the conversation, because liberals are:
1. idiots who hate the subject of conversation that makes them uncomfortable or look stupid (hence like immature school thugs they say the teacher is crazy instead of doing the essay) (Kerry’s right to be stupid)
2. they are conversational predators, waiting for anyone to say something to pounce on them, making it impossible to discuss the predatorial of Planned Parenthood they love , for instance
3. they are cowards going after the owner of the firearm and car, ticketing them, instead of going after the criminal who stole either to commit crimes with.
What is fracking reasonable in saying Global warming causes terror!?
It is ridiculous.
Liberals need to be educated, not debated
Just to make sure
It seems to me the ‘disconnect’ on the 2nd revolves around what you said. Its really not law or something that can be changed. The BOR is a statement that these things are beyond law and given to every man by God not govt. The govt has no recourse but to recognize them. If the govt refuses then the people also have the right to dissolve the govt and start again.
Excellent point, which the “progressives” will never get
Yep - many of us grew up in better times - when life was considered a precious commodity and our Dads often worked with school teachers to help with firearm safety classes. My Dad got with my shop teacher and they put together a fine class - complete with a series of NRA safety films (with graphic pics of what happened to folks who did stupid things) and which included dry-firing/sighting. Even had a few field trips to a local range which brought out a number of other parents (mainly Dads at the time). No causalities and I have never forgotten the lessons learned.
1. "Voluntary" surrender of guns will not happen in the United States. Compliance with New York's "SAFE" Act is negligible; we won't even register our guns when an unjust and unconstitutional law demands it.
2. A "robust" confiscation effort by law enforcement is likely to lead to a whole lot of ugly outcomes. I am strongly pro-police, for the most part. When it comes to those (hopefully few) police who become complicit in an effort to trample the Second Amendment, that will change completely. I have no sympathy for jackbooted thugs, which is how I would view any so-called American who participates in an inherently evil policy of disarming law-abiding Americans. The police are supposed to be there to protect and defend decent people, not to impose the will of the self-declared ruling class on real Americans.
The author is an ass.
A total ban would NOT reduce gun crime - because the criminals (like in Chicago) would never comply. Only the law abiding will suffer.
And the author appears to completely ignore the overwhelming history of incrementalism exhibited by the left. Because they have used this technique for so long, it is idiotic to cede even an inch in an existential argument over a fundamental right - one granted by God, and acknowledged (I one would have said ‘guaranteed’) by the constitution.
The left controls the schools, where self-responsibility is now forbidden. They control the media, where sensationalism rules. And they desperately want to control the ‘conversation’ on guns, using shout-down tactics, among more subversive options.
No, the author is an ass, and the website that published this owes 2nd amendment supporters a huge apology and retraction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.