General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Michael Moore's FB comment on the UCSB shootings, [View all]SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)"when you start talking about wanting to ban an entire class of firearms, it only gives credence to the NRA's talking point of "where will it end?"
And
"I mean, not to sound callous, but if 20 dead first graders couldn't get even universal background checks passed in this country, what on Earth do you think will?"
A lot of people in this country are for reasonable gun control legislation. I don't want to deny your right to own a gun, but I also don't want to live in the wild west, so some restrictions should be in place. I'm sure any reasonable gun owner would agree. This is why we pay our representatives, to represent opposing sides of an issue and hammer out a middle ground that both sides can agree on. However, this only works if both sides are reasonable, and "where will it end" is not a reasonable position. Just as "ban all guns" is not a reasonable position. The problem lies in the fact that "ban all guns" is a deeply minority position, while "where will it end" is the damn battle cry for the right. Any attempt to produce any legislation at all has been met with vicious opposition. Just ask the 2 Colorado Senators who were recalled after trying to pass restrictions on guns.
The logical extreme of the gun control debate is "do you think anyone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?" The obvious answer is no, and therefore you believe in some limits on weapons ownership. Now we just have to decide where the line is drawn. But we can't if the 2nd amendment champs aren't willing to come to the table.