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.
Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:13 PM
Jan 2016
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.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

today on MHP [View all] Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 OP
What's dishonest is using this one example SecularMotion Jan 2016 #1
as I have said many times Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #2
You just said you supported background checks SecularMotion Jan 2016 #3
yes, because it is true Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #4
Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are irrelevant. SecularMotion Jan 2016 #6
but that how the pundits Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #7
I'll offer a counter question. flamin lib Jan 2016 #10
many collisions are stopped Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #11
No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious. flamin lib Jan 2016 #12
this is about background checks, nice try at Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #13
Your case could be bolstered by an example or two ... DonP Jan 2016 #8
my guess is he will not respond Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #9
He posted more in this thread than in his own group for a month n/t DonP Jan 2016 #14
I know, lol Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #15
You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive, GGJohn Jan 2016 #5
Says the anecdote king. krispos42 Jan 2016 #16
yes, indeed so Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19
I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal. branford Jan 2016 #17
good response, thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #18
As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away branford Jan 2016 #20
Bargained? Yes. beevul Jan 2016 #27
There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in hlthe2b Jan 2016 #21
so who is saying that? Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #22
I won't give you the time it would take to spew back your gungeon posts... but they are there. hlthe2b Jan 2016 #23
typical, just posting insults Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #24
Nice strawman argument. branford Jan 2016 #25
Generally, it's the anti-gunners that expect 100 percent effectiveness beardown Jan 2016 #26
And if they don't get it, they push another law! Makes perfect sense. Eleanors38 Jan 2016 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»today on MHP»Reply #27