Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it. And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky. I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power, it should be reversed. The people need to take control not the other way around.
You want to give up bones, well that bumpstock thing was supposed to be in the same bill as the concealed carry reciprocity bill and look what happened to that.
A government who does not trust the people cannot be trusted themselves.
|
"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."
Can you list those who have said it, please?
"I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power"
Not even if it helps save children's lives? If bump stocks were never available, isn't there a good chance the death toll would have been lower in Las Vegas? You can argue that cars kill a huge number of people, and therefore should we ban cars? But I don't see bump stocks as something that's as vital to our everyday lives, as cars.
None of us are advocating for anarchy, so we all agree there are worthwhile tradeoffs between liberty and security. It's just a question of whether or not we're at the point where moving the line towards safety, is warranted. I'm starting to think it is.
There is no fathomable gun law that would have prevented what happened in Texas. None. But there have been mass shooters who have used bump stocks and high capacity magazines to maximize the death count. I am willing to live without those things if it saves the life of one innocent person somewhere. I don't think that makes me a progressive liberal. But we can disagree.
Put common sense aside, and think about politics and optics. As I said, I don't see the 2A crowd showing much sympathy or empathy at all for the victims. That doesn't play well, and it gives the liberals useful, productive ammunition to use against us. So if you don't want more liberalism, that means you want as few democrats as possible to get elected. If you want to get as many conservatives elected as possible, you need to win as many elections as possible, and like it or not, that means appealing to the citizenry in those districts. That might mean throwing them a bone.
There are purple parts of the country that might choose a moderate democrat over a gun fanatic. If you won't budge from a stance of ideological purity, you might be helping the other side. And I know YOU care about those kids, I don't mean to imply you don't. But the media will portray our side as not caring, and that works on some people.
The 2018 midterms are important, I have zero interest in repeating the experience of having Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Locally in my state of CT, the democrats are extremely vulnerable, we could make some historic gains. I'd hate to lose that opportunity, because the media convinces the electorate that we don't care about dead kids. Perception matters if you want to win elections.
I completely agree that gun laws won't put a huge dent in the body count. But it might help a little, and it might get us a whole lot of political capital, and might stop the other side from acquiring political capital.