One side isn't even trying to reach consensus in gun debate

[SecularMotion]

Here is what he said: "...all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be."

It would seem to be a self-evident truth. After all, your First Amendment right to freedom of speech is regulated. If you don't believe it, write something libelous about a guy with deep pockets and man-eating lawyers. Your Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is regulated and then some. If you don't believe that, pick up your phone and ask the NSA agent tapping your line.

Unfortunately for him, Dick Metcalf, who made the aforementioned observation, was not referring to the First Amendment or the Fourth. No, he was talking about the Second. He's been out of work ever since.

We are indebted to New York Times reporter Ravi Somaiya for bringing this story to light on Sunday. Metcalf, who lives in Barry, Ill., is not a gun hater. To the contrary we are told that he is -- or was, at any rate -- one of the most prominent gun journalists in the country, a self-described "Second Amendment fundamentalist" who, at 67, has devoted most of his adult life to gun rights. He hosted a TV program about guns. Gun makers flew him around the world and sent him their products for review. And he had a regular column in Guns & Ammo magazine.

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/pitts/one-side-isn-t-even-trying-to-reach-consensus-in/article_d322acbf-65f4-5451-80a3-6eb89715eb19.html

[Straw Man]

1. And what is the "consensus" on your "side," pray tell?

Be as brief or as expansive as you need to be.

[gejohnston]

2. four things

gun restrictions have have existed since the founding on the state level, and on the federal level since 1927. There never has been "unrestricted gun rights" in the US. Throughout much of the 19th century, the South has had gun liciening schemes (including Texas) gun bans (like Georgia's gun ban in 19th century) and even universal background checks (North Carolina 1919, Michigan 1925, and Missouri 1921-2007, and New York's licensing scheme in 1911 named after the Tammany Hall politician and mobster who wrote and sponsored it, Tim Sullivan) Maintaining the status quo still has restrictions.
His example of libel is one private party suing the other and has nothing to do with actions of the government, that is a false analogy.
The NSA is violating current law and the Constitution, which is why it is secret. Still another false analogy.

Assuming we do adopt the mental health reporting, which has more to do with medical privacy laws than anything else (and scapegoats the least violent members of our society, and an idea adopted from that asshole Wayne La Pierre.) and safety tests, there will still be the likes of Bloomberg falsely claiming that there are no restrictions, just like he falsely claims that today.

[Token Republican]

3. Correct

The gun control group continues to flail and grasp at straws.

The first amendment argument fails. While there are restrictions on some speech, there is no ban on certain words. The classic argument of yelling fire in a crowd fails miserably, as under the gun control logic, the word fire would be banned.

The fourth amendment argument is even a more spectacular fail. The NSA is violating the 4th. And that should be fought. Just as the infringements on the second are being fought, and prevailing too.

These arguments are almost as bad as the second amendment applies only to militias and muskets.

Next time try to get at least some facts right. Google is your friend. But you get an A for effort.

[spin]

4. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, some in the Democratic Party saw ...

an excellent opportunity to push for another assault weapons ban at the national level.

That was the poison pill that doomed any chances of improvements to our national gun laws.

Like it or not, a high percentage of gun owners see gun bans as a first step to further bans and eventually to the disarming of most citizens in our nation. The idea of another assault weapons ban may be popular in the highly populated urban areas of our nation but not in the more rural areas. The majority doesn't always get its way in our nation due to the make up of our Senate. Highly populated more liberal states get the same number of Senators as the states with a much lower population.

If the gun control movement and the Democratic Party would simply stop seeing gun bans and firearm registration as the solution to gun violence (which they are not) eventually we might be able to pass some truly effective gun legislation.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Yes, and we all know which side it is. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Some on the pro-control side...

...aren't even trying to understand the objects they want to regulate.

[DonP]

7. Why bother?

From past experience in the real world and on this board, the control minded folks are perfectly willing to lie and obfuscate their real demands to gain a few inches of advantage.

The control side calls for "a dialog" and "compromise" when they are having their ass handed to them, but as soon as they see an opportunity, they try and run over us like bulls in a china shop, clamoring to prove how "tough" they are on guns.

Why work with someone who isn't dealing honestly or even vaguely in good faith? Besides, if I wanted to hear from a morally "superior", condescending, ignorant ass hat I'd call my BiL.

After being burned several times in the past by being dumb enough to trust the control people, there's no real reason to reach a "consensus" for gun owners.

Besides, face facts, we're getting pretty much everything we want anyway and the crime rate continues to drop, much to the chagrin of many on the control side.

Go back and read your Hemenway studies a few more times out loud to each other, worship at the MAIG/MDA PR shrine some more and convince yourself that there are really, really, really fewer gun owners ever day ... just with more guns.

Don't you guys need to start a collection for Poor Ol' Dick Metcalf now anyway? Poor man has to pay for his own guns, ammo and travel. Life is so unfair.

[sarisataka]

8. Very accurate title

the side that does not getting bogged down in details and recently banned two more posters for attempts at discussion- one of them actually posting trying to discuss the SOP of

support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice

i.e. how to enforce requirements of widespread non-compliance with a new law, doesn't actually want discussion or consensus.

They promote progressive actions like

quick ride to jail, or cold dead hands, their choice

All those surplus MRAPs will finally come in handy.

[SQUEE]

12. Who me?

I tried to make the point that winning an argument merely to win is not the goal of change.. I guess being on of "those people" negates any of my humanity...
It really is transparent...

[sarisataka]

13. A noble effort

[Duckhunter935]

15. I see they needed to

remind people of the name over there of bansalot. They sure like open discussion, do they not. That's right,now they just use GD.

[ileus]

9. We've been telling folks this for years...2A regressives have no interest

in debate or even being honest on what their ultimate goals are.

[Token Republican]

10. True

This group is how I found DU, the pro 2A side has lots of forums, but obviously there are more pro 2A people there than not.

I tried to find an anti forum, but most websites simply don't have any discussion forums at all. There are a handful of heavily moderated blogs that will insta-ban anyone who attempts any conversation that does not support bans.

I had hoped this little niche group might be different. I probably shouldn't judge it based on one bridge dweller, but it appears to be more of the same common sense restrictions for the children's sake nonsense. The more I try to discuss, the more I'm convinced the control side's ed game is a total and complete ban of all privately owned firearms, and all offers to discuss is simply a guise.

There are plenty of decent pro 2A forums, and absent reasonable discussions from both sides, this place really isn't exactly my first choice for 2A discussions. I guess we'll see.

Might just wind up sticking with my more liberal views on the GD.

[rrneck]

17. The emotions surrounding guns

are a religion on both sides of the aisle. They're waving a gun around in CPAC like a sacred totem, and the left responds like it's an anti totem. True believers forget that about 30% of democrats own guns. But no matter, bloviaters across the board manage to get their front feet in the trough.

[Eleanors38]

11. So noted. Prohibition thrives on the promise of punishment...

it is a pleasure which drives those want to control others. Such emotions are often termed "compassion," when in fact they are heart-felt hatreds. DU had become especially susceptible to this distorted view of compassion, and "guns" is but one topic where the drama plays out.

[pablo_marmol]

14. Ahem........

http://saf.org/journal/13/AbsolutistPoliticsinaModeratePackage.pdf

[hack89]

16. You talking about the folks behind the moat at castle Bansalot? nt