Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
As the country struggles to understand, and come to grips with random acts of firearm violence by unstable and unbalanced individuals Illinois is already taking action to further regulate firearms. Like the millions of law abiding citizens I am torn between the right to bear firearms and finding the point at which it makes logical sense to restrict that right. In a modern society in which the tools of warfare are advanced beyond what the founders could possibly have envisioned, and the efficiency of modern armies are such that the citizens would stand no reasonable chance against the modern army, does the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons have any real purpose for the homeowner and sportsman? If deemed they do should they not be highly regulated and restricted to HELP reduce the incidents of tragedies like Sandy Hook?
I certainly do not have the answers, nor do I believe the anti-gun crowd has the answers either. Anymore than I believe Wayne LaPierre and the NRA has the answers. Reasonable minds from all sides however must come together and find answers to these questions and others. The American people are deserving of the effort. We can preserve the right to bear arms , and make our society a safer place for our children at the same time. At the same time recognizing that there will always be some level of violence even if firearms were to be banned as some advocate. There will always be criminals, unstable people, and a black market. The challenge is to reduce firearm violence to the lowest possible incident level AND protect the right to bear arms.
I welcome and encourage anyone, from either side of this issue to point out the issues with the Illinois effort as described in the article.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
As the country struggles to understand, and come to grips with random acts of firearm violence by unstable and unbalanced individuals Illinois is already taking action to further regulate firearms. Like the millions of law abiding citizens I am torn between the right to bear firearms and finding the point at which it makes logical sense to restrict that right. In a modern society in which the tools of warfare are advanced beyond what the founders could possibly have envisioned, and the efficiency of modern armies are such that the citizens would stand no reasonable chance against the modern army, does the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons have any real purpose for the homeowner and sportsman? If deemed they do should they not be highly regulated and restricted to HELP reduce the incidents of tragedies like Sandy Hook?
I certainly do not have the answers, nor do I believe the anti-gun crowd has the answers either. Anymore than I believe Wayne LaPierre and the NRA has the answers. Reasonable minds from all sides however must come together and find answers to these questions and others. The American people are deserving of the effort. We can preserve the right to bear arms , and make our society a safer place for our children at the same time. At the same time recognizing that there will always be some level of violence even if firearms were to be banned as some advocate. There will always be criminals, unstable people, and a black market. The challenge is to reduce firearm violence to the lowest possible incident level AND protect the right to bear arms.
FOX NEWS - Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.
Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an “urgent alert” to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.
“There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering,” the group stated in its alert. “You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution.”
A Senate committee approved two bills, one dealing with the weapons and the other with magazines. Democratic supporters could face a tough sell in the full Senate.
One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. People who currently own such weapons could keep them but would have to register them. The bill would allow semiautomatic weapons to be used at shooting ranges, but those facilities would be regulated.
Skip
The other bill, introduced by Democratic state Sen. Dan Kotowski, would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.
Those pushing for enhanced restrictions say stricter rules are needed in the wake of a string of high-profile mass shootings -- most recently the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn had been trying earlier this year to pass new legislation in the wake of the Colorado movie theater shooting, but lawmakers are taking another crack at it.
Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor.
Another Democratic state lawmaker, Antonio Munoz, introduced the ban on all assault weapons “designed for war.” {Read More}
I welcome and encourage anyone, from either side of this issue to point out the issues with the Illinois effort as described in the article.
Via: Memeorandum
"One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles."
ReplyDeleteSemi-automatic? Hmm.
So I take it that the good old fashioned six-shooter revolver will be making a comeback? Sweet. My first handgun was a S/W .357. Ah yes...my trusty six-shot.
As to the issue of 10-round magazines, I am laughing because this will solve nothing and no one will turn in their 20/30 round magazines anyway. They say that a 10-round magazine will prevent a mass slaughter like in Sandy Hook, but honestly, if a person is motivated, trained, and running on adrenaline, a 10-round magazine will not stop as many deaths as they hope.
I can't prove causation, Les, but there has been a pretty strong correlation between right to carry laws and a decrease in the murder rate. Maybe the anti-gun lobby needs to think this one through a little bit prior to acting on emotion and in such a knee-jerk manner.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at the states that have liberal right to carry laws ("liberal" as in very loose), you see very different demographics and issues than you see in states that have tighter laws but yet higher murder rates. So yes, there is a causation at play here, but it has little to do with right to carry, and everything to do with the interstate gun trade as it relates to right to carry. In other words, states with loose laws make states with tighter laws more dangerous. Bloomberg empirically proved this a while ago now.
On top of that, there are plenty of examples of high gun crime in states with loose laws. On that level, this argument is a pointless war of statistical anecdotes.
Donald,
Two friends of mine told me tonight that they had perfectly legal guns that can do all sorts of fast, horrific damage. Both of them have perfectly understandable reasons for owning these weapons. And they are both sensible, stable, decent, good people.
If you could just for a moment get off the subject of 'what gun do we ban,' and rather focus on how we regulate the trade of guns, then you may consider that the regulation of the gun trade is the heart of the issue. Yes, some guns should not be sold, and a country with a well regulated militia would do that, right?
Les,
Fantastic post. Fantastic.
JMJ
If I may, jmj, and please correct me if in error, is it not true that in general states with the most
Delete"relaxed" forearm laws (typically red states) have the highest incident of death due to firearms per 100,000 on population?
It is, as Will points out that states with right to carry laws have seen a drop in the murder rate.
Another statistic I believe to be true is that most gun deaths are caused by suicide, occur with in families or close relationships (crimes of passion), or are accidental.
I'm not sure how this all correlates, but I am sure before we go off half cocked and start enacting new legislation we ought to be as sure as possible that we understand it all.
Perhaps a commission to study the data and make recommenations. General Citizens, law enforcement, statisticians, military, doctors, lawyers, parents, grandparents, ANYBODY but the damn politicians and the NRA.
Just food for thought.
45-46 states now have right to carry laws, Jersey (and the other 4-5 have a version of it but tighter, as you say), and the statistic that I was offering here was a national reduction in the murder rate.
DeleteCrime in general has been going down for a generation now. And if you notice, it began to steadily drop, and precipitously, exactly one generation after the Roe v. Wade. So...
DeleteWhat we now have is a glut of guns on the streets that are coming from from states with lax sales laws. We have to do something about the gun trade.
JMJ
JMJ,
DeleteSO abortion has helped decrease crime in America? You say this knowing that the highest percentage of abortions performed are on urban black girls. So...basically you are inferring that the genocide of blacks in America has been good, since it is tied in with keeping our crime rate down, is that it?
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
Ouch, JMJ. Even coming from you this is a hard pill to swallow,
Go to a prison and talk to criminals about gun laws. They will laugh in your face. Guns are easily made and they are made all over the world (and of course these criminals don't even buy their weapons legally anyway). University of Maryland economist, John Lott, has examined gun laws all over the country and even the world and he has yet to see any evidence of a single gun law lowering the murder rate anywhere. And he often sees just the opposite. In D.C., for instance, when they lifted the gun ban there, THAT'S when the murder rate went down. You really need to start thinking outside the box on this one, Jersey.
DeleteMr. Borsch, exactly eighteen years after RvW adult crime began to drop significantly and precipitously all over America. Look it up. I don't care what "freakonomics" says. It's a fact.
DeleteYou can not seriously deny the effect of RvW on the reduction of social ills in America today. Period. You'd have to be willfully moronic.
JMJ
JMJ,
DeleteI'm struck completely speechless by your sheer stupidity. You are saying that abortion-on-demand has been a good thing and has brought benefits to America since it has eliminated the criminal class and social ills, made up of minorities.
You're an idiot.
The correlation between abortion and the murder rate is a wholly and obviously spurious one. At least with right to carry there's a plausibility component to causality (a criminal not knowing if his targeted victim is packing and so he is probably less apt to follow through).
DeleteThere is no real, solid evidence that RTC laws reduce gun crime. If anything, it could be argued that RTC only increases the risks of crimes of passion, road rage, etc.
DeleteI don't personally have too much of a problem with RTC laws as a local and state matter, but I don't see how they in any way address the problem the gun violence in America today.
And Mr. Borcsh, you're a willfully ignorant ideologue. Na na na na na.
JMJ
Willfully ignorant ideologue? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones jmj.
DeleteThe murder rate has gone since the passage of right to carry laws. Is that in any way definitive proof. No. But you know that if the correlation were to have gone in the other direction, the gun control freaks would be gone totally ballistic.
DeleteLes,
DeleteI believe there should be no corporate tax, no capital gains tax on physical assets, and a rock solid military.
Do you really think I'm a willfully ignorant ideologue?
Does that sound like a liberal ideologue to you?
Anyone who personally knows me will tell you that I have a hodge podge of views. I think empirically with the Golden Rule.
Besides, there are no stones of my own being thrown here. Just throwing them back.
JMJ
"Crime in general has been going down for a generation now. And if you notice, it began to steadily drop, and precipitously, exactly one generation after the Roe v. Wade. So..."
DeleteYou deride it, but the Freakonomics article says the same thing.
And you are again woefully ignorant to the statistical fact that private firearm ownership do not promote or add to gun-related violence. Remember, Jersey McShithead, that law-abiding citizens don't contribute to criminal statistics. Criminals do. Criminals = non law-abiding citizens.
Your stupidity has caused me to lose IQ points.
I wasn't deriding anything. I was just saying that you don't need Freakonomics to see the obvious truth.
DeleteAnd why don't you act like grown-up?
You spew right-wing talking points like a FOX Zombie and then claim to be oh so bright.
You're not. You have not a single original thought of your own. You're just another useful idiot, a sycophant of the sleazy and corrupt right wing.
Try thinking for yourself and stop repeating the idiocy of the simpleton right.
JMJ
Show me one FOX talking point that I have used and I will fess up, but the truth is that FOX speaks not for me. At all.
DeleteProve me wrong, Jersey McDumbboy. You cannot. And that bothers you. Good. Ha!
Please don't be too hard on Jersey. Like a good progressive, he is a fan of racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and apparently an advocate of pulling weeds.
Delete"How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds." -- Margaret Sanger, Protoprogressive
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough". -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Progressive Jurist
I can't think of anything you say, Mr. Borsch, that isn't FOX boilerplate clap-trap. Including the adolescent insults.
DeleteJMJ
I can't think of anything you say, Mr. Borsch, that isn't FOX boilerplate clap-trap. Including the adolescent insults.
DeleteJMJ
I'm sure this will solve that rampant crime problem in Chicago!
ReplyDeleteYour state, Les, has stricter gun laws than mine, yet our incidence of gun crime per capita is lower than yours.
There is the interstate issue that Jersey mentions, so, by his logic, if a group of people over there can't control themselves, we must all be punished. This is why modern day liberalism is a misnomer. They care nothing for liberty, instead payin total and complete obeisance to the state.
As we continue to draw lines in the sand, frame everything as left -vs- right the sides continue to perpetuate their desired outcome.
DeleteI'm reminded of how thinking people often employ evasion to avoid solving problems.
I didn't frame it as left v right, but rather liberty v statism.
DeleteHow is it "punishment" to regulate sales and be responsible for your arms? Why do you cons always call being responsible "punishment?"
DeleteJMJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKurt,
DeleteLiberty vs. Statism? Hmmm.
I can totally see that. Perhaps you are correct in that it is not about right vs. left, since history has shown us that the right stands for liberty and the left stands for statism. Well, for the most art, anyhoos.
Definitely food for thought.
Jersey: The burden is on you to out these lawbreaking states, since you are the one leveling the charge. So just what states are flooding the market with guns and not doing nationally-mandated background checks?
DeleteName names!
The gun manufacturers are producing more guns than the legitimate market can absorb, meanwhile in many states, throughout the south and mid-west, gun show stings have stopped thousands of potentially dangerous sales. How many more went unnoticed?
DeleteNevada, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania - all these states were lax on gun sales. THOSE ARE THE NAMES.
Look it up and be informed for a friggin' change, Silver.
Find some new sources of information. It's good for the brain.
JMJ
JMJ,
DeleteBogus. The gun manufacturers are behind in their products, and local firearms dealers are giving a 6-month to a year waiting period.
I would challenge you, if possible, to attend a local firearms show in NJ and see if you can buy a firearm under the table, sans background check. If you succeed, then take photos, go to the local cops and turn in the moron who would sell you a weapon without verification.
If you are successful, you will score one for the gun lobby, and you will be a hero to the anti-gunners. A win-win for you.
If the gun manufacturers weren't producing enough guns (shortages in particular local markets aside) then why are there so many "illegal" guns all over the streets?
DeleteOsmosis?
JMJ
Weak, Jersey: You've provided no facts, just leftwing propaganda.
DeleteJMJ,
DeleteCurrently, CURRENTLY, gun manufacturers are behind in their orders due to such a high demand for firearms. There is a 6-month to one year waiting period for firearms here locally in CT. I should have specifically mentioned this is a local occurrence, my mistake.
Of course there are illegal guns on the streets. That comment of yours made no sense in the context of what I said. I am not talking about illegal guns in the hands of criminals, I am speaking of you and I going to a legal gun shop, following the law, and seeking to buy a new firearm fom said dealer. They ain't there. The shelves are bare.
I am sure if you put your mind to it you could easily acquire an illegal firearm in New Jersey. But at what possible cost? Jail time ain't worth it.
So are you going to take me up on my challenge? Go and prove to us all that this gun show loophole exists and is rampant. You would be a liberal hero, JMJ, and for a good 10 minutes they would glorify your name. Go for it. You have nothing to lose.
Gun crime statistics:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Here then is the data. Interesting. Both sides have made points based on data that is irrefutable.
So, where do we go from here? Do nothing? So something? Or, just continue to throw data grenades that support your sides contention favorably?
The extreme positions on either side will continue to get the juice, and neither side will listen to the other.
I find it interesting that nobody has addressed some of the other points I made.
No surprise. Both sides are more interested in their agenda and are not really listening to the other. Typical. 1776 reality -vs- 2013 reality.
Argue liberty, liberalism, conservatism, tyranny, whatever. God and well, will continue for the ages.
In the meantime why not identifying ways to reasonably PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and ADDRESS THE REALITIES of a changing world and society.
Both can be accomplished that allows law abiding citizens to keep arms at home, hunters to have firearms to hunt with, and the ability to protect oneself with a gun if necessary.
The issue is semi automatic assault weapons designed for military action and extended magazine clips. Nobody, with any logic or the ability to reason has suggested BANNING firearms completely.
I'm tired of the debate. I support the Constitution, the 2'nd a,amendment, the right to protect oneself in their own home with a firearm is neccessary, and liberty and freedom. But for Christ sake everbody lets be reasonable and fknd a sullotion that reduced the crIme rate and the number of firearm deaths. Or, we can do what we do so well, STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND and do nothing that makes any sense.
I'm a classical liberal, liberty loving type of guy and even I am getting rather befuddled by the extreme position many are taking.
"The issue is semi automatic assault weapons designed for military action and extended magazine clips."
DeleteSo you would ban any weapon that is semiautomatic, and also the scary looking ones? And you think that solves the problem? How?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou have proven to not be serious, so you are wasting your time, worse wasting the time of others. If you don't have a solution, why bash those who are making a serious effort? Go back to bashing Obama, that's your forte.
ReplyDeleteI am truly thankful to the holder of this web site who has shared this impressive post
ReplyDeleteat at this time.
Feel free to visit my blog post :: sourceforge.net
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA very compelling, and oft stated argument for maintaining the status quo. Further reinforcing the truth in my reply to Silver.
DeleteThose two seconds could be the difference in 10 people getting shot and 20 people getting shot.
DeleteJMJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAh, but you in fact do Natsuo. You, like many simply fail to recognize it. There are objective facts for those who chose, or put another way decide to analyze them.
DeleteThe issue at hand is not about banning firearms or restricting the right of law abiding and mentally stable individuals from the right to own and keep firearms. That my friend is the delusion the NRA, of which I was a former member, as well as the loonies would have everyone believe.
It is however not the reality.
Okay, well, if it's come to insulting my intelligence ("fail to recognize it," implying that I don't choose to objectively analyze the facts, "delusion," and "loonies"), I guess that's that then.
DeleteBest of luck in your future endeavors.
Well then. As you handily deleted your comments other than this one I cannot address your concern with any specificity other than to say I was not insulting your intelligence. That was not in question as you obviously are intelligent as well as well written.
DeleteMy comment was meant to be general that IMNHO many, including the NRA and yourself do not look at the broader picture and therefore do not consider all the ramification or possible alternative solutions. I continue to stand by that position.
I am sorry you were offended by my comment, perhaps I should have been more sensitive to your sensitivity. One thing I have learned is conservatives and libertarians need to have very thick skin. The second is that one should never take thinks too personal because usally there aren't meant that way. With the exception of some very rabid progressive and extreme right wing socons and neo con.
Anyway, I wish you well in your future endeavors. If you should have a change of heart consider you have an open invitation to return and express your views. How else can a democratic republic with freedom of speech and expression hope to survive for long?
Good evening sir, and may the bounty that hard work and perseverance usually brings to one in America smile upon you and yours.
Natsuo must live in a very violent part of the world. Statistics say his claim is false. To have had to defend his life so many times is a statistical impossibility, and a claim falsely used by pro gun NRA side. Please submit the police files on your multiple, successful uses of your gun to save your life so many times.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou don't report crimes to the police? Especially crimes committed against you, that were so serious you had to draw your gun. How convenient to avoid the question, yet, you ask me for federal statistical proof. By now, good luck with your stories.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo wonder your area is so crime ridden; if citizens refuse to help police catch criminals. I guess those who go it alone don't worry about the safety of others.
DeleteLes,
ReplyDeleteSo lay it out here for us to see, then. What is the solution? Should we have a meeting of pro-gunners and anti-gunners, some tea and biscuits, and a lengthy meaningful dialogue? Should we have the NRA send a rep and let them face the victim's parents of any shooting in America? What, Les?
You deride that this issue is becoming, or has become, a "left vs. right issue", but Les, it is. That is simple fact. The left wants to remove private firearms as their endgame and the right wants to make sure we can keep private firearms. There is no grey area, sir.
Either you (used generically - not saying YOU) support The Constitution or you want to rewrite it. Period. And if you think for one second that no lasting harm will come to the Second Amendment if America lets the left tweak it here or there, you are mistaken. Dianne Feinstein is showing the Democrat playbook right now, Les. They will not stop until they confiscate private weapons.
They want semi-automatic guns banned. What next? Handguns are semi-automatic. Unless you use a revolver, old school like Dirty Harry. And then when they ban revolvers, then what? Muskets? Black powder rifles? Cap guns? (which should be illegal because it teaches little Johnny to shoot people, and he will become the next Adam Lanza)
It will not end, Les. Please, and I ask this with deep respect, PLEASE realize that this is a leftist vs. rightist issue, and to attempt to moderate it or be the "sensible one" will not work. Stand with The Constitution or abandon it. Just do not waiver. Common sense says that The Constitution is right. Stand with me on this, Les. Please.
Don, you know I respect you position and your right to it. To claim as I do to be a classical liberal and liberty advocate demands it of me.
DeleteHaving said the foregoing, I do not claim to have the answer, not do I believe you alone has the answer.
I am a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. A supporter of the 2'nd amendment. I also accept that over the course of over 225 years realities have changed. This sometimes requires "thinking outside the box" of old "conventional wisdom" to in fact preserve that which we love.
If I have not stated my specific suggestions I have certainly alluded to them generally in this and several prior posts.
My purpose is not to convince anyone of the correctness of my beliefs, rather it is to hopefully get some to consider all points of view. Thoroughly and completely before deciding them irrelevant or completely wrong.
IMNHO it is as the Founders of this great Republic would have it. Ad Don, the fullness of period history bears testimony to my statement.
Les,
DeleteMy elder friend, there is no 'all points of view' here. That's the problem. A line needs to be drawn, a decision needs to be made and then stuck with. It profits none of us to go, "Well, what about this...or what about that...or how about this here...or..or..or.."
As you are reasonable and rational, I am hoping this will be an instance wherein you set your face and not relent, maintaining your position without the need to be 'open-minded'. I guarantee, if this issue falls to the schemes of liberalism due to open-mindedness on the parts of Conservatives, it will not end well.
I say all this with respect, sir.
I much prefer the terminology having an active mind as opposed to having an open mind. I say this because an open mind could, and in some instances is synonymous with having a vacuous mind. If you understand my meaning.
DeleteBy way of clarification I WAS NOT referring to you Don. I hope you know that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't understand what I wrote, did you?
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Anybody with a moderate level of dexterity and a little practice can pop a magazine out and pop another one in in 2 seconds or less, then maybe another second to chamber the round." (Emphasis mine)
To wit, I wrote, "Those two seconds could be the difference in 10 people getting shot and 20 people getting shot."
Understand?
JMJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ "To wit, I wrote, "Those two seconds could be the difference in 10 people getting shot and 20 people getting shot."
DeleteAnother ignorant comment from Jersey. Were this true, the military would do away with 10 round magazines and issue 100 round drums to everyone, but that is not the case. Once again, a person ignorant of arms makes pompous, fact-free pronouncements.
Here's another hint for you Jersey: The higher capacity magazines have a much higher failure rate.
Oh, and where do you live? Somalia?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd Natsuo, I hung out in NYC, and in some tough neighborhoods, in the 1980's and early 90's when crime was through the roof. I never in all those years found the need to use a gun.
ReplyDeleteYou're anecdotes are just that - anecdotes. The odds of needing a firearm to defend yourself from harm in America today are very low.
As for where you live, maybe you should move to someplace safer. I'm sorry Arizona is such a mess, but you can thank you're idiotic "conservative" immigration laws for most of those problems.
JMJ
JMJ,
Delete"I'm sorry Arizona is such a mess, but you can thank you're idiotic "conservative" immigration laws for most of those problems."
Non-sequitur. Look it up. You just employed it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon, it is true that the conservatives, starting with Ronald Reagan, and GWB SURE AS HELL fists the following comment, really had no problem with all kinds of cheapo immigrant labor entering the USA and working for a fraction of the cost of American labor as it kept costs down and benefits under control.
DeleteI'm thinking that is what the jmj was talking about.
Les,
ReplyDelete'Twould appear that Natsuo somehow was offended and has left your site. Shame, that. Things were getting...interesting. Oh well.
I, however, am looking forward to your next entry, as it profits me much to be in an environment such as this, wherein I can sharpen mine own mind and cement my ideals. ;)
Oh, by the way, I will probably start commenting using my Google account screen name soon. Just so you know. Cheers, my online friend.
Indeed it is, and indeed it was.
DeleteAs I have returned once again to study entrys may be fewer and more sporadic.. I shall endeavor to keep them interesting and hopefully controversial.
I have found the open discussions, honest disagreement, and cross section of ideas to be most instructive and helpful as well. It has solidified my belief in the principles of Classical Liberalism and the value of reasoned and reasonable compromise. It has given me a new appreciation for the brilliance of our Classically Liberal and enlightened founding fathers.
Present conservatism in America poses many undesirables. The alternative lies in objective thought that is not driven or controlled by pure ideology. Both the left and the right IMNHO need to start thinking about this.
Les,
DeleteYou said:
"Present conservatism in America poses many undesirables. The alternative lies in objective thought that is not driven or controlled by pure ideology. Both the left and the right IMNHO need to start thinking about this."
Let us look at this. If I say to you, "Les, I have a solid and firm ideology that I believe is 100% air-tight and I will not compromise or acquiesce to any other", you might tell me I am too rigid and unwilling to have an open dialogue.
But please be honest- are there no issues you yourself will not relent upon? Are there no issues regarding our governance that you will simply not be swayed? And if so, does this not make you unwilling to have an open dialogue?
Pure ideology, as you call it, is not the villain. I fully expect, and rightly so I believe, that any progressives or liberals I encounter to be as unmovable as I am on certain issues. The villain to me, if I can call it that, is that there is only one right way and all others fail. Hence, I still see no good that has come from any liberal or statist mindset, ever. This is why I am a liberty-seeking and defending rightist, or Conservative Independent.
Has the GOP or the mainstream Republicans represented my brand of Conservatism perfectly? Oh, goodness no. Has the prog/libeal/Socialist representatives perfectly represented their America-hating ideals? Oh, most definitely.
I am, I reckon, one of the purists you would malign. The GOP, being the beltway elitists who are more concerned with keeping their power than promoting true Conservatism, do not speak for me. As I am sure they do not speak for you. No, my brand of proper governance and Constitutional fealty can only be found at kitchen tables and diners across America, where real Americans sit and discuss the bleak and dark future of our Nation, knowing it will hold its present course.
I am glad for you that you believe open dialogue has helped you cement your ideals. Bravo. But I have learned one thing thus far, ever since I decided to venture into this dirty world of political straining and fussery, and that is this: There is right and there is wrong. There is no grey area. I firmly believe what I believe, and will not compromise or entertain weaker-minded ideals or anything that would weaken us as a Nation.
Thanks for reading, Les. I know I was quite wordy, here.
Does all this mean to say I will stop reading your blog? Nah. Your blog merely gives me a view into another aspect of America, without demanding I swear by it or to it. Not once has any of your liberal readers made any comment that has changed my mind. I simply like to interact with them for the sake of letting them show me their hands, full on and without restraint, and this enables me to better counter their ignorance.
We're on the same team, Les. And right now, that's all that matters to me, even though I am a self-professed purist. ;)
I am sure the founders individually felt much as you, and I do about principles. The War of independence was about lofty principles. When America gained independence the principled founders found a way to do what was ultimately necessary... Compromise to achieve the goal and greater good. I understand this. It is in a nut shell all I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteLes,
ReplyDeleteUsing my Google account name to post test. Sorry.
Les, I just posted this over at Perigon Media. Thought you might want to peruse it and give me an evaluation. I would welcome your critique, if warranted. Oh, and the same invitation is extended to Silverfiddle, as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.perigonmedia.com/questions-for-the-anti-gun-crowd/
Thanks. I see my new Google/Blogger screen name is working. Yay.
Lines are being drawn that doesn't bode well for or do anyone or eiher "side" much good.
DeleteMy position is, and has been quite clear. Support the the right to keep and bear with reasonable restrictions.
Assault weapons with extended magazines are what is at issue
"Assault weapons with extended magazines are what is at issue"
DeleteThat's the issue the media has created.
Anon,
DeleteKnowing that statistically, according to the FBI data gatherers, that I am more at risk of being shot by a person with a handgun than a semi-automatic rifle with an extended clip, your words ring true.
The guy holding an AR15 is a visible threat, and hence can be adjusted for. The guy with a concealed handgun, well now, how does one adjust for that?
"Assault weapons" is a term coined by the gun-grabbers (with the help of the old media), designed to instill fear and suspicion of any rifle that looks like one they saw in a movie, and is therefore bad and evil. Technically speaking, a semi-automatic gun, be it a handgun or a rifle, is not an assault weapon. To earn that moniker, a weapon needs to have full auto capabilities. (I'm presuming you know this, and I am not lecturing you by an means! I am typing this for the sake of the uninitiated.:))
Dianne Feinstein, for example, considers a mere .22 caliber squirrel gun as an 'assault weapon' that demands banning. I would guess she sees a handgun and automatically assumes it's a Glock, and that all rifles are AK47's. *facepalm* So it goes with the gun-grabbers.
It is PAST time, way past time to reinstitute a complete ban on all automatic enabled firearms to civilian individuals.
ReplyDeleteBut, the DO NOTHING republicans listen to gun crazed zombies of the NRA and will continue to promote the insanity of firearm proliferation..