woodguru wrote:
The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.
So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.
The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.
Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red flag behavior
...felonies
Red flag laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.
Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.
I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.
The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.
Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a traitor.
The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right,... (
show quote)
Fox News found that two-thirds of Americans favored a ban on semi-automatic weapons. What's "sensible" changes with each shooting. As for people on the right, we are a democracy and rights aren't a one-way street. When the second amendment was written the intent was to have a Well-Regulated Militia to protect the country in place of a free-standing army.
Well, there isn't a conservative in this country that would favor a reduction to the military so the question begged is how can someone with an AR-15 stand up against a police force and military trained in the use of automatic weapons, drones, and explosives. Cons wouldn't stand a chance if they attacked our government and because of that, the second amendment is largely negated. We are following a fossil that is being misinterpreted solely to allow the misguided amongst us to play Rambo when doing so would get their asses shot off!