Stop Justifying

The secondary issue is that "middle ground" constantly moves.
NFA. GCA. Brady Bill. 1994 AWB, Etc....

California is a perfect example.
"We need common sense gun laws!"

"Oh, okay, this sound reasonable... we won't vote against this as long as you don't ask for "that" "

5 years later, middle ground moves just a bit more, and now they are asking for just a little bit of "that", but put it in a way that seams reasonable.


It's like the frog in a pot of boiling water. Throw him in and he jumps out.
Put him in and gradually turn the heat up, and he doesn't notice.

 

Hunting usually

 

You would be sharing views that are consistent with the views and political efforts of groups who are actively attempting to remove all firearms from legal status.

 

No , I would not be attempting to remove all firearms

 

He didn't say you were. He indicated you have SOME "similar" views as the individuals who are advocating those actions. But in no way does that indicate that you are one at heart. If you were "anti gun" at heart, you'd be preaching it....i've seen no sermons from you yet...

 

So what

 

+1

 

Well , I'll leave you to your rhetorical circle jerk then

 

So that is what I said.

Guilt by association. Express opinions that match those of a group that is fighting very hard to make their case and you end up getting branded with the same badge, whether it is deserved or not.

Generally speaking, all generalizations are wrong... but it is human nature to make generalizations. It is an aspect of survival and recognizing threats and friends. Middle ground is not initially trusted.

 

I'd never share my time with anyone....those moments are special. F**k circle jerks.

 

...the reason it's such a polarized issue, ...is that, like many issues/rights/etc... those on one side stand (although, in this case, it would be "all" in theory, even those who don't recognize it) to lose everything, over time, as the opposite polarity seems to never subside... i.e. the anti-gun movement/politics/etc, in it's core, is hellbent on eradicating gun rights for citizens, period (...case in point, the U.N. IANSA, ...the australian bans, the U.K. bans, etc.)..

it is a culture war that is fought every day, like a tug-of-war... in tug-of-war, the objective is to move the flag in your direction, over the line in your own territory, ...never to cede ground to the opponent... to lose, is... to lose everything, ...although the anti-gunners really don't have anything to "lose" at all per se, ...they never go away, and have nothing substantive at stake in the game...

 

Okay, so without resorting to use of the phrase "Why do you need" please explain why you believe that .50 cal machine guns (or large capacity magazines) should not be available to civilians, given the facts that:

1 - No crimes have been documented in 50+ years involving .50cal machine guns in states where they are permitted
2 - The predominant gun used in crimes is a 5-shot .38spl revolver (specifically Smith & Wesson J-Frame), followed by 9mm/.40cal compact semi-auto with a magazine capacity of less than 12 rounds.

 

X2

 

Just about signature worthy.

 

So, to pull this back on track just a bit, what if I had said "Those calling for restrictions on guns" instead of labeling them "anti-gun" in my original post?

And Rich91710 - You're right on the money. Your breakdown of the Bill of Rights and the frog in the boiling water analogy are both important points. The Constitution doesn't grant power to the people, it grants very limited power to the government. All power not specifically given to the government is reserved for the people (pretty much what the 10th Amendment is all about) .

I totally understand the desire to stop pain and suffering. I wish there was a simple solution or even a viable one. I just don't believe that gun control, even when it's packaged as "Just a little Responsible Gun Control" - is the answer. I'm also not willing to go down that path to see if it will work, it's a slippery slope.

My point was - We don't justify our need to peacefully assemble, or be tried by a jury or to have the ability to confront witnesses against us or any other right. We need to stop Justifying our right to lawfully possess firearms by claiming there's some need.

 

Target shooting (sport / hobby), collector and work (a hunter if that's your source of living or security guard etc) definitely cannot say play