Wise words by Bless our Hearts. I have my own say on it to come .
Good for you, Andrew.
No offense, but sending a rant full of left leaning slogans will do nothing but divide people further apart. Stuff like that is what makes people on the other extreme run out and buy more assault rifles. If healing is to be done, it needs to be respectful and factual, not sanitized slogans created by other politicians who are just as corrupt as the ones on "owned" by the NRA. It saddens me to see people moved to tears looking to bring peace and safety to our country by spewing hatred towards others.
No offense taken. But I think hatred is also spewed by people who value themselves and their positions more than the people they are suppose to be serving. Sometimes, picking a side is required.
I agree with your first two sentences. But I have never picked a side that ended with both sides coming to an agreement. Picking a side only draws a line between the sides and begs for a fight. Those fights never end well for half the people and I would argue don't end well for most of the people.I have sat down with people of differing beliefs and found room for compromises that helped both sides. Doing so required respectful discussions without use of campaign style rhetoric.
I think a good case in point is Roe vs. Wade. We've been drawing a line for years and now that line is going to be erased and half the population is extremely disappointed. Had we spend all those years looking for compromise in the middle instead of choosing sides, perhaps the outcome (coming) would be different.
Somehow my previous comment didn't publish. Basically it was that picking a side only serves to draw a line and ask for a fight that never ends well for half the people and sometimes most of the people. I have solved more by not picking a side but seeking common ground and using that to find a compromise that everyone can be happy with.
There is only one side to take, Ed. NRA lobbying of mass murder of their own, children frequently, for the dollar and power in the senate is as sick as this society can get. There is no political badminton game here , no give and take. No reckoning with the illness that the second amendment has become or the party supporting the insanity.- "picking a side" clearly misses the mark, there is no side to pick. Clearly the NRA and the twisted second amendment, the $$$ and power behind it, has challenged this nation to the core, a nation imploding, murdering it's own.
To my knowledge, the NRA has never lobbied for the murder of children. Saying they do is flat out lying and serves no cause but to rile up their base. But I do think there is room for second amendment rights to be upheld and yet doing common sense restrictions such as universal background checks, limiting the sale of assault rifles, high capacity magazines, restricting felons and the mentally ill, etc., i.e. common ground. But by insisting that there is but only one side, we will never find that middle ground and thus these tragedies will continue to happen. I would rather find that middle ground and save some lives instead of insisting it is my way or the highway why more innocent children die.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1049054141/a-secret-tape-made-after-columbine-shows-the-nras-evolution-on-school-shootingsThere is your middle ground.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394a bit of history , lobbying
Ed, I know that you are a very nice fellow who believes firmly in finding the middle ground. But let me tell you plainly this: that there is one side of this equation that is not willing to seek the middle ground. If you wish to try this, try saying, 'You know, I think we need to ban assault weapons.' That is, in my mind, completely valid and reasonable. Nobody needs military weapons. No one needs to be able to out gun the police. You say that in a gun store, and watch people refuse to discuss. The reaction will be visceral and immediate. We have a faction that is refusing to compromise and has been refusing to do so for years.
What would be a starting point for this 'middle ground'. I really am curious where you think it is.
I don't really know what middle ground is on the gun debate in general. For me, I would start by getting people who are willing to listen from both sides without shouting insults, not submit reams of links found on the internet as evidence of their particular side and able to converse respectfully and sit them around a table and see what happens. For me personally, I would start somewhere along the lines of a universal background check for all sales, public and private that is free for anyone to access. I would highly restrict sales of assault rifles, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc. There would be an minimum age, I would start at 30 or with proper military like training younger. I would also require in person character assessments of you and acquaintances by a board of representative peers as to why weapons made to kill many efficiently is needed. I find it much easier to find one small piece of common ground, get that one solidified and then expand slowly. But as we have seen over the last 20 years of drawing lines in the gun debate, exactly nothing has happened except more people dying needlessly.On a side but related note, my state just submitted a bill to our governor to sign creating a deer season for assault rifles and other semi automatic weapons. It boggles my mind and I am having a hard time seeing the reason for such a law. But I don't think it would have come to this point had we not been trying to draw lines in the sand and choosing sides for the last 30 years.
Ed, the problem is that the NRA says that their job is to oppose all gun legislation. ALL. If one side of the debate refuses to come to the middle, what is to be gained by insisting that opponents must meet them there?
I'm not an NRA member nor do I care to be so I don't pay attention to what they say. But I would say that the NRA isn't all of one side of the debate. I would say they are a loud minority in this debate and like many loud minorities, say outrageous things simply to get attention. I saw on the news last night that something like 87% of people are in favor of universal background checks and something like 65% of the people are in favor of banning assault rifles. Those are the middle ground people you need to go after and try to get on your side. They are the ones who will eventually, hopefully, elect voices of reason to congress and get a universal background check and reinstate the assault weapon ban. But by harping on a vocal minority, all that is being done is giving them the limelight they seek.
I would say that since 1975, they have been using millions to gain political power. This is what makes them a problem. Politicians, it seems are very easy to buy. Also Ed, can I just say that I am so glad that you are you.
How can gun manufacturers look at themselves in the mirror? Everything is skewed/screwed if we begin to believe, "Our shareholders don't just want millions, they want billions." Why won't someone STAND UP and shut down production of assault weapons? I really don't want to live in this country.Bonnie in Minneapolis
The NRA spends millions to influence legislation. I've always been curious what the difference between lobbying and bribing is, myself.
There is a whole chapter in The Grapes of Wrath about how its impossible to be upset at the bank, because the bank isn't a person but what it does is screws up people's lives.Of course the NRA don't blatantly say "go kill kids" - but they offer weapons that are capable of such destruction, lobby that "freedom" can put the guns easily into the hands of nutjobs and then we get to watch the magic happen.The love of money is the root of all evil - and so many industries worldwide are being corrupted by this love for the almighty dollar about all else. It is heartbreaking.
I have wanted to comment on this but didn't have the right words. A friend of mine wrote this and I whole heartedly agree with him. A hundred and fifteen years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907. This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine. About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles. The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons.. The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock. The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 115 years old. It isnt new in any way. The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them. The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed. Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed for the worse in the last 50 years. Absence of parenting in many children’s lives, society that is focused inward, lack of proper role models to look up to, lack of discipline in general, the advent of social media and a lack of awareness of its damage on youth, a media industry focused on a 24hr news cycle filled with 90% punditry instead of news. A lowering of society and community norms. This crazy idea the government is your daddy.Cause the rifle technology in question was here long before this insanity.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-whats-an-assault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.htmlThis is something that the gun advocates really try to muddy the water on. No one needs a gun that fires 50 rounds. We have a lot of guns in this house. My husband is a hunter. We don't have these kinds of weapons. Any legislation being considered is not something that affects 90% of the sportsmen in this world. If people want to play with machine guns, they can join the military. The government is not my 'daddy'. We are sensible people who live sensible lives, with our sensible guns.
And being sensible, we don't like the idea that an 18 year kid is able to buy two machine guns and 375 rounds of ammo and shoot 19 children.
Anon, the fact is that you hold up the exceptions to the rule as proof that you are right. It's a no brainer, really. People with guns that carry 50 rounds of ammunition are more likely to kill more people in one fell swoop. Banning them is the answer.
I'm glad you're here!