Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Red Duke,
Let me take another shot at explaining my position. It's twofold. One, I don't like my rights being constrained by the possible actions of the irresponsible or the dysfunctional. A proper approach is to address the actual problem they are creating rather than burdening law-abiding, responsible people.
Unfortunately, liberals seem to instinctively take the oppsite approach. They impose restrictions on law-abiding people instead of addressing the problem headon. With firearms, it's largely concerned criminals in the past. Liberals want to ban all sorts of guns on the rationale that criminals might get them, but they recoil at the idea of imposing harsh prison sentences on actual criminals. The NRA has long supported enhance sentences for using guns in violent crimes.
Now we have these mass killings. In terms of the actual numbers, they pale in comparison to the body counts in major cities like Chicago, run by liberal democrats in perpetuity. Yet liberal pols seize on them to use the emotional horror to push through gun controls they could not otherwise pass. I find that tactic odious, and I have little respect for politicians who succumb to it.
The appropriate response is to look at the actual incidents and see what we can do to prevent them. Clearly nothing in any proposed new gun law would have prevented the school shooting. The guns were legally owned. No one is seriously proposing confiscation of hundreds of thousands of legally owned AR15's.
Why can't we focus instead on measures that could provide immediate benefit and on which both sides can agree? Measures like enhanced school security, better training of teachers and student and tighter monitoring of young men with mental health issues. This tragedy would have been prevented by a school door that was somewhat more secure. We spent billions on making every sidewalk in america handicap accessible but we can't spend a little money to secure schools?
The second reason I oppose your suggestions is the slippery slope argument. Once they ban 30 round mags, the next time it will be 10 round mags are too large. After all, who needs more than five? They ban AR15's and AK's, next it will be semi auto and pump shotguns. Who needs that much firepower? Certainly not Nancy Pelosi. She has private security.
This is the flip side of the abortion debate. Liberals fiercely oppose even the most reasonable restrictions because they fear the next step. So they get into ridiculous positions where, like Obama did, they support killing aborted babies who somehow survived.
I don't doubt your good intentions, but I do doubt the good intentions of those pushing ever greater gun restrictions. Their goal is a total prohibition on private ownership and confiscation. The best defense against that is not to give an inch.
