OK

It was suggested that I present some thoughts on the whole gun debate and to build that bridge over the rivers & streams that divide us.

Where we seem not to agree must be pointed out before I order the building materials, hire the architects and get the permits required.  

I promise I won't outsource project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Framing the issue as a moral imperative that must be dealt with now and setting up a false dichotomy in a zero-sum game theory.  As in Win-Win versus Win-Lose and the morality of only those two finites.

2.  Labeling anyone whom doesn't agree with you as a “Gun Nut”, “Gun Absolutist”, “Baby Killer”, “NRA Shill”, “Red Stater”, “A Concern Troll” or a "Terrorist".

3. Solutions that include banning & restricting unalienable rights by the Federal Government.  Creating publicly accessible registration lists, mandatory training, taxing ammo, etc, etc.

There seem to be other nuanced disagreements but these seem to be the biggest I've noticed so far.

Framing the issue as a moral one is noble: How many must die for X, Y and Z?

Sadly, we are not anywhere even close to being a moral nation. We never were. Many have delusions we are. We should mention our morality to the Natives we slaughtered once we got here.

Morality has always been relative. No two people agree 100%. This is reflected in our Racist Drug Laws, in our Economic "System" AND more glaringly in our Foreign Policy.

To answer the moral question:

I do not want anyone to die because of X, Y or Z.

We are finally facing the demon in plain sight are we not? Our relativistic morality is offended when we kill our own children but not when we kill millions worldwide?

Why is that?

Can there be a legitimate discussion of morality when it is relative to whomever has access to the microphone?

When we label one another in a derogatory fashion it usually arises from the emotional/moral framing that occurred previously. More often than not it's use evolves into a manipulative tactic to keep us from coming together and working out our differences.  "How dare those people sit at the counter/table with us!" The proverbial "Pearl Clutchers" comes to mind.

I'd rather find solutions we can agree upon instead of making it personal.

Finally we come to the "solutions" part. I must ask for clarification first:

What is freedom? What does it entail?

What limited power did we grant our created government? It seems the answer was articulated by Adam B.

Funny thing, as one of those "gun nuts" referenced, current Constitutional barriers would not be breached if the regulations are uniform AND not intended to ban the exercise of said unalienable right.

There are many false analogies presented, such as, being "means" tested for a job and driving a car. The reasonable conditions placed upon an applicant for voluntary employment and a privilege conditionally granted does not equal the status of our unalienable rights.

I do not own a firearm and never have. I do demand our created government ensure our equity under law, nothing more or less.

Something that clearly has yet to occur for the majority of us.

Could those same "regulations" be placed upon free speech, free press, free religion and/or petitioning for redress?

Have they already?

Should we generate lists of anyone and everyone that exercises any right?

Would the Anti-Federalist or Federalists papers be allowed to be published by an anonymous person today?

Would the Civil Rights Movement have ever happened if everyone had to be pre-approved, registered and documented to freely assemble?  We've witnessed firsthand what little OWS has accomplished, correct?

Why's that again?

Should there be lists of every congregation and their members too? Should these lists be publicly accessible?  With names, numbers and addresses?

Owning an object is not terrorism. Or is it?

What is always the historical end result?

Will we continue to be reactionary impulsive authoritarians that the war on terror has created?

Can we sit down and actually address these issues that are redefining this nation?

Or will we be forever lost to the dictates of our corporate overlords and their emotional manipulations that keep us from realizing we never needed a bridge to be built in the first place?

I leave it up to you to decide our path forward.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.