I understand that some of the loaded rhetoric is loaded. It makes the topic hard to discuss. I do like that of all my dissenting fellow posters, you bring it back to the topic and don't descend into dissecting the messenger.
I do that because we go way back, to the days of panda. We have our disagreements, but your dialogue is respectful. So I play nice.
I am using "liberal" in an archaic sense: someone into civil liberties. That basic premise has ben distorted into what we now call libertarian. Modern liberals/conservatives are a less ideologically transparent lot.
Ahh, yes, that fits your premise more betterer.
So the question becomes, what constitutes sound and durable weapons legislation? I tend to be of the "remove the warning labels and let Darwin sort'em out" school , but I have a family and recognize the hypocrisy were I serious about that. So I gravitate to the two extremes: outright ban or outright "weapons free". Advocating an intermediate stance requires much higher levels of moral math ... and a careful definition of terms, the sort of things we pay attorneys much money to do for us. The subjective nature of the terms colors our discourse.
Indeed, that is why we pay attorneys and political representatives to figure all that "complicated" stuff out for us. And of course, here we are.
I am inclined toward zero gun prohibition combined with frequent and mandatory range performance reviews IF you wish to carry, open or concealed. That however puts me at the permissive end of the opinion spectrum. What would you propose as a starting point or platform?
Also referencing point 3, I ask why the need for polar extremes? What's wrong with providing your moral equation? Applied with the same methodologies as referred to by Annie, why not vote on a series of moral equations to determine the "grey area"?
I take the position that people (US citizens) should have the right to [
panda] bear arms unless otherwise revoked, and should pass some level of competency and background check, as if that person were applying for a drivers license. It should not be easier to get a gun than it should to drive a car.
On the other hand, I do not take the position the Democratic party is currently stedfast closing ranks on, which is to remove all pleasure from gun ownership. After reading the [recent] bill many Democrats have signed on for, I want to vomit. On there respective faces. In 2016, banning all guns expect for girly 6 shooters is not the answer, not by a long shot. But I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to curb the current uptick in gun violence; starting with the police. Going off topic a moment, I don't agree with, but can certainly sympathize with the backlash of police killings that have taken place over the past few weeks. Something needs to be done.
I think that one thing we need to square (or decide we cannot) is about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I read it as meaning parity with any forces the Government can mount ... keeps the folks in the capitals notionally honest. Stated another way: I believe that the fulcrum of the Second is to give the average citizen the power to say No to a government that the citizen opposes. If enough citizens form a similar resolve, it is a most democratic way to "water the roots of the tree" of revolution that Jefferson described. ... From your conclusion, I conclude you see a different basic intent. I ask you: what do you see that intent as being, and how does it shape what you see as a balanced implementation of permission v. regulation?
(Now we get into moral terrain. Not as convenient as the extreme arguments, but perhaps more useful in the complex reality we inhabit.)
You are right, I do see the intent differently. I see the 2nd Amendment written as a way of allowing non-military, non law enforcement people to form a militia when called upon, to fight for their country, for their government. Not against it.
Most assuredly the intent of the 2nd Amendment or any Bill of Rights for that matter were NOT written as a clause for people to revolt or stand up against government because they don't agree with a law or statute. That is what the democratic election process is for.
