Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: today on MHP [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)27. Bargained? Yes.
For instance, I would agree to UBC's, national firearm safety and proficiency standards and training, and even greater national restrictions on open carry outside of situations like hunting. However, in return I would demand concealed carry reciprocity which totally preempts state and local regulation, similar to how a driver's license from any state is good everywhere in the USA.
Bargained? Yes. Bargained away cheaply? Not just no, but HELL NO. Lets not forget, that while we are talking about dickering with a constitutionally protected civil liberty, we are also talking about a huge intrusion into personal private property rights (which could be argued to be another equally important equally fundamental civil liberty). Its easy to lose sight of that, particularly for those who have no interest in the property in question, and especially for those who are against ownership of that sort of property (note: this is not directed at you, and is a just a general statement).
That requires a very large 'counterweight', in my view.
Simply, I would ensure than any gun "safety" regulations are offset with reasonable and moderate pro-gun rights proposals. Any attempts at incrementalism would be thwarted because the legislative "balance" of gun rights would effectively remain the same.
That's what needs to happen, I agree.
Unfortunately, this is likely the same reason why gun control advocates would never agree. It's become readily apparent that many gun control advocates have made the perfect the enemy of the good, and don't understand that comprise actually means offering things that your opponent wants and cannot otherwise achieve. When the majority of the gun control camp realizes than wanting severe firearm restrictions, and willing to settle for slightly less severe restrictions, is not compromise, but demands for surrender, and particularly ludicrous when they lack the political capital or judicial strength to pass anything at all, maybe we'll be able to discuss effective means to reduce gun violence. I'm not confident this will occur any time soon.
Spot on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive,
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#5
I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal.
branford
Jan 2016
#17
As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away
branford
Jan 2016
#20
There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in
hlthe2b
Jan 2016
#21