Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
The cake analogy is a pretty good one.
The problem with a middle ground position is similar in one way to the problem of our highways and streets. You can walkl on the left, you can walk on the right, but if you walk in the middle, someone will run you over.
The other problem with a middle ground is that from the beginning, the anti's position has been "what's mine is mine, and what's your's is negotionable".
That is not compromise, or anything even remotely resembling it.
Laws have proven, for thousands of years, that they do not stop anything. ALL they can do, when they actually DO it, is punish those who break the laws. And lots and lots of recent laws punish everyone to some degree, rather than just the guilty.
Each "extreme" position, on both sides believes they are fundamentally and morally correct. Those people's minds, you won't change. The bulk of the "middle" is either un or under informed, and is spoon fed lies from the media 24/7, all with the intent of furthering the anti gun agenda.
For most people, who don't have, or use guns as part of their regular lives, all they know about guns, gun rights, and self defense is what they get from the corrupt biased media.
Survey says...its a great way to run a game show, but a lousy way to formulate public policy, particularly when the surveys themselves are, shall we say...of questionable integrity.
"Most gun owners favor more restrictions" or "Most Americans favor more..." That's what I'm hearing today from the media. Now, I won't claim to know "most" gun owners, or most Americans, but I do know more than a few, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has changed their opinion about gun control, on EITHER SIDE!
This latest shooting is a sad thing, as all are. Worse for some, emotionally, because it was mostly children. Tragic. And frustrating, because, once again, the shooter took the easy way out.
We can focus on mental health, but that too, is a red herring. It is already against the law for someone who is adjudicated mentally incompetent to buy a gun. Could we tighten up the system? I suppose. Should we? Yes, of course, if it can be done. But no system is going to be comepletely foolproof. There will always be someone(s) who "slip through the cracks".
And, there is no system that can tell if someone, sane today, won't go insane tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Because of that, they will say no one should have guns. Again, another red herring. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle, especially not now, hundreds of years after the invention of firearms.
And, even if you could wave a magic wand, and make all the guns just go away, what do you accomplish? You put us all back to the rule of the jungle, where the strongest do as they please. Someone with determination and four feet of sharp pointy steel can kill 20 kids and 6 adults just as easily, he will just have to run a little more to catch some of them.
No law prevents evil from acting. TO me, it is not reasonable to tell me I have to wear chains and shackles because someone half a continent away ran amok. (even if it was next door, it still wouldn't be reasonable)
The old bumper sticker that said "Fight Crime! Shoot Back!" isn't just an extreme view, it is the only thing that has proven to work.
I don't think it is extreme to want to keep what is mine by right. Our natural rights were not given by the Founders, what the Founders did was write a rather clear document about what the government could, and could not do to us regarding those rights. It took the right deniers a couple hundred years to sufficiently muddy things up so they could evade some of the restictions the Founders wrote. And they are still at it....
Middle Ground? go stand there, and enjoy what they allow you. I will stand where I have always stood, for the rights of the individual citizen.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.