Mass Shootings, The Second Amendment, And The Implacable Left
Mass shootings inevitably make me feel a bit more sympathetic to restrictions on firearms. I'm not religiously committed to the easy availability of 30-round magazines. I used to be more favorably-disposed toward what are sometimes called "common-sense" restrictions on firearms than I am currently.
So what's changed? Well, one relatively recent change is that I have come to believe that the left is implacable and inherently...what? Radical? Expansionist? It's never satisfied. Even when its goals aren't crazy (as some aren't, obviously), it just keeps pushing leftward. So that even the non-crazy goals eventually evolve/mutate into crazy ones. I've long ridiculed the intractability of the right...but I've become a bit more sympathetic. It no longer seems all that crazy to me to think that you just have to draw a line and fight the left basically every step of the way. Which is not to say that's always the approach I favor; rather: it just doesn't seem that crazy to me anymore. Does anyone really think that the anti-gun lobby would be satisfied with banning high-capacity magazines? Giving in on that issue would just mean that they have that much less territory they have to win; but they'll never stop until there's a total ban. No concession will ever be enough. Or, well, so I'm at least somewhat inclined to suspect these days.
I'm not sure how we got here. This wasn't Obama's attitude. It wasn't Bill Clinton's attitude. It didn't seem to be Hillary's attitude...did it?
Though, OTOH, it's not like the NRA has been a paragon of compromise, either. To say the very least.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:11 PM
6 Comments:
I don't own a gun, but I support the 2nd Amendment. Every a politician (here's looking at you Obama and Clinton) mentions Australia, they are talking about a ban. Obama endorsed about Australian solutions several times, yet they state "No one is suggesting a gun ban or people coming to take your guns. Stop being hysterical." Yet their preferred identified solution is a ban. http://bfy.tw/Gd6c
The problem with this is it totally ignores the existence of the 2A. There is a road to a gun ban, but it goes through the amendment process.
Yeah, I don't sit there patiently waiting for the adorable "let me Google that for you" think to slowly grind out its passe insult.
I hear that. It seemed like the easiest way to show result after result for Obama talking up Australia's approach to guns.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but how can you work with a group that says we want a small change and we specifically exclude the slippery slope destination you worry about, when as soon as the small change happens they immediately go looking for their luge?
There are a lot of goals that the left espouses that I find to be admirable, but they don't know when to quit. Given the choice between jumping on the slope and maintaining the status quo, the status quo doesn't look so bad.
Eh, sorry for being so cranky, man.
I get it.
And I agree.
Um. Seems like you are letting the perfect get in the way of the good, or at least the contrapositive. X leftie group will not stop demanding gun control with Y action, ergo we shouldn't have any gun control at all. It seems to me that a rational case can be made here without recourse to reductio ad absurdum on either side
The only realistic way to reduce gun violence is to get rid of handguns. That would take care of ~95% of the problem. Long guns are not an issue, except for mass shooting situations, which are still quite rare. Yet, what do we hear about? Assault rifles. Bump stocks. Semi-Automatics. It is like trying to tackle obesity by regulating eclairs and other French pastries.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home