Fair enough, and that's kind of what I thought, but I was getting confused. It doesn't help that my personal starting point is a belief that everybody is paranoid in regards to this issue. Sorry about that.Deacon wrote:Right, sorry for any confusion, I meant the editorial "you" as in the public and government, or those seeking to drive them, not literally you as an individual.
Fair, but we both know there are plenty of politicians who have all but sworn to do the exact opposite, and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country that would go to great lengths to prevent that.Deacon wrote:The problem is that a number of people in power driving these policies and legislation have said they would outlaw gun ownership if they could, and until then they'll work tirelessly to come as close to that as possible.
Perhaps I'm on the same page, and did not direct the word "compromise" directly at the people defending the second amendment. You don't hear a lot of room for compromise on the other end of the debate, either. There's usually a very dismissive mention of hunters but little else. I'd like both sides to be willing to meet in the middle, but neither is willing to even recognize the other as valid and honestly I'm really just confused.Deacon wrote:Right, but it's disingenuous to use the word "compromise" to mean giving one side what they want or for them to only get most of what they want. That's not a give and take. That's just not as severe a take as they'd like. There are already extensive gun bans in place and a long list of compromises in place that infringe on our Second Amendment rights. It's not a "compromise" to extend those even further, just not to the totalitarian extent some would prefer.
I can think a bit too academically and get very unrealistic at times and this is one of them I guess, but there has to be some kind of middle ground. Not just concessions on one side, some kind of a real middle ground. For everyone. It bothers me that nobody seems interested in even looking for it. Everyone just plays things for points off their opponents. As I've become fond of saying that's what sports are for.
Well I'm very libertarian, but I'm also not willing to believe that one size fits all for every single issue I come across. If I'm going to rail against the two major parties and the prevailing "wisdom" therein I can't exactly read my answers from somebody else's book, can I?Deacon wrote:As someone with some pretty long running libertarian tendencies, I'm surprised that you would make that argument, and so glibly and flippantly.
I'm just confused. I don't understand how we can move heaven and earth in certain matters because terrorism still exists, but people we're actively looking at can buy guns. Legally.
I really shouldn't have put that in there because my thoughts on that issue barely touch this topic after about fifteen seconds. Besides which it was out of nowhere, and a topic that hadn't even been mentioned before in the discussion. In fact in doing this reply I just deleted a couple of paragraphs of those thoughts. Bottom line, yes, the lists are open to abuse, and frankly government related abuse should be punished and punished severely. But if these lists don't prevent that guy from buying a gun, what the Hell are we doing? Either it's weird that we're standing up now, or it's weird that the same people weren't standing up and getting furious years ago when we began trading freedoms away in the name of protection against terror.
I really should just fade away and lurk for the rest of this thread, clearly I don't have any solutions or much else to add and I'll just keep doing laps.