5 ms·

The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible g

The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war. In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.

jdanp 9y ago
NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun. Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at. The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.
  - jdanp 9y ago
    Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concealed-carry-reciprocity https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea.... That sounds like budging to me.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all. Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees. This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdanp 9y ago
    This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concealed-carry-reciprocity https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea.... That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.
cgag 9y ago
I would view it as a fundamental parts of the system not to be flexed with. You're also never going to get back anything you give up. You could easily live through 50+ years of incrementally handing over bits and pieces of your right to bear arms to the government before things turn ugly. It's San Francisco relaxing its building codes since it hasn't had a big earthquake in 100 years.
sheepmullet 9y ago
> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either. All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry? > If people can't get sensible gun regulation Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?
- chillwaves 9y ago
  > you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/06/u-s-guns-used-majority-crimes-mexico-center-american-progress-report-says/301238002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Does it make my statement any less true? Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.
      - sheepmullet 9y ago
        > I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US? The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.
makomk 9y ago
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this. To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America. The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?
- mtreis86 9y ago
  The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Karunamon 9y ago
>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided? That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them". Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!". So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.

jdanp 9y ago

NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun. Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at. The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.
- jdanp 9y ago
  Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concealed-carry-reciprocity https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea.... That sounds like budging to me.
chillwaves 9y ago
As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all. Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees. This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jdanp 9y ago
  This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concealed-carry-reciprocity https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea.... That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.

cgag 9y ago

I would view it as a fundamental parts of the system not to be flexed with. You're also never going to get back anything you give up. You could easily live through 50+ years of incrementally handing over bits and pieces of your right to bear arms to the government before things turn ugly. It's San Francisco relaxing its building codes since it hasn't had a big earthquake in 100 years.

sheepmullet 9y ago

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either. All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry? > If people can't get sensible gun regulation Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?

chillwaves 9y ago
> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/06/u-s-guns-used-majority-crimes-mexico-center-american-progress-report-says/301238002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Does it make my statement any less true? Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US? The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.

makomk 9y ago

The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this. To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America. The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?

mtreis86 9y ago
The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Karunamon 9y ago

>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided? That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them". Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!". So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.

jakeogh 9y ago
Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.