I understand the ignorance of the general public as it pertains to guns, automatics, etc. I mention this because I'm sure a huge portion of the population shares my sentiment. They ( and I ) think this is no big deal.
The perception of these twice-monthly mass shootings is becoming a problem. Facts won't matter. It's becoming an issue, and I suspect will become more of an elective issue for conservatives. DJT seems to be on the verge of tweaking gun laws to stem the blowback. So, imho, this and tweaks to enforcement, and mental health evaluations are pre-emptive and perhaps helpful 1st steps.
Please advise why I'm misguided, and then evaluate if your argument will hold up against the anti-gunners out there.
“They ( and I ) think this is no big deal.”
Speak for yourself. It’s the principle of the thing...a knee jerk emotional reaction to a mass shooting which fell right into the hands of the anti-gunners. Weak people caved. Shouldn’t give the bastards an inch.
Well, the media crafted perception is certainly an issue. They are so very good at remaining on message despite their protests that they aren’t what they are.
When dealing with dilemmas the thing to realize is that they are usually crafted in such a way to nay present the bad options. Like the proverbial horns of a bull these invited responses open you up to impalement fro the other horns no matter which you choose.
With gun control, yes, it is important to point out the many times that firearms are used for defense; however, the other horn (the demand to do something) is not rooted at all in facts, but only in feelings, and is immune to that approach. They have their panties in a twist.
But the REAL problem, the uninvited response not wanted, is one in common with ALL Leftism, it is fighting against Arbitrary government and the presumption that people’s circumstances alone (perceived or real) are somehow basis for the federal to lawfully address them.
It is no coincidence that the NFA 1934 comes from the fetid flowering of Arbitrary government that was the 1930s, for it was then that people finally stopped supporting the Republic as FDR cast it aside for a fistful of benefits, programs and federal power grabs.
Ultimately addressing gun control means having the larger debates that we never had back then, forcing people to deal with the fact that they hate the Constitution that actually exists and pressing home that their circumstances, their feelings, are immaterial when it comes to what government can lawfully do.
Screw everyone equally ... save the Republic from progressive pablum.
Chief Tecumseh went to visit the cabin of a friend, finding the friend absent he decided to cook up a pot of meat. As he was preparing the meat he heard the door open slightly. He wondered what may have opened the door.
Being patient he waited to see what developed. Soon there was a nose and only a nose sticking through the doorway sniffing the aroma inside the cabin. Tecumseh had his suspicions but was still not sure who this encroaching friend could be and turned back around to stir his pot of meat. He thought to himself, “It is only smelling the aroma and not harming anything”.
Soon he heard the door move again and turned to see the head, only to the shoulders, of the neighborhood watch dog and protector eying the pot of meat. This time he yelled at the dog to go away only to turn a few minutes later and see the dog had returned and had now fully encroached into the cabin. He yelled at the dog again but it would not leave the cabin.
As he contemplated the event the dog had now encroached all the way up to his feet demanding a portion of the meal. Tecumseh now realized that the situation was a loss whether he shared some meat with the dog or not. He was now stuck with the dog for good until even the very smell of the meat was gone or until he did something very severe to chase the dog off.
As he shared his meal with the dog, he reviewed the event thinking about how the dog had slowly encroached into the cabin little by little as he, Tecumseh, had allowed it by just watching and waiting. The dog slowly forced his way in because there was no immediate protest and action against him pushing the door open to stick his sniffing nose into the cabin doorway.
Tecumseh learned something in this event and stated to himself “If I had only latched the door closed right away to keep the nose out, I would not have ended up with the whole dog.”
~ Condensed from the novel about the life of Chief Tecumseh “Panther in the sky” by James Alexander Thom. Great book with many more examples of Government encroachment.
Here’s a perspective that YOU should be ready to deal with, as someone who is not all that familiar with gun law issues: We gun owners have been taking steps backwards in an attempt to “be reasonable,” etc. since 1934. Only very rarely, and to a very minor extent, have the rights that have been stolen since then been restored. What good is a “right” if it is not enforced or protected in all time periods and across the entire country? My grandfathers COULD have bought full autos at their local Sears & Roebuck for cash, no CLEO sign-off, no tax stamps, no questions - SO WHY CAN’T I DO THE SAME?
Here is a better summary of what has happened over the last 84 years:
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.”
From “Lawdog” https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?showComment=1285384385988#c6434453110329887129
[I’m a constitutionalist, firm believer in 2nd amendment, but have zero interaction with firearms]
Therein lies the problem with your following rationale.
1.) There are more firearms than citizens in the US.
2.) We’re not all dead.
1+2=3
3.) It’s not the guns. Not any of them... Not the automatic ones, not the semi-automatic ones, not the flintlocks.
There are exactly 0 US mass shootings this year using a machinegun. (Look it up if you don’t believe me.)
Bump-fire devices are now machineguns...
Simple statistics indicate that bump-fire devices are now SAFER than semi-automatic handguns.
Finally: “Shall not be infringed.”
The DOJ does not have the authority under the Constitution to limit a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
They just made bump-fire devices “protected” under the Constitution.
...idiots.