
Originally Posted by
moondog-sparky
Matt - i respect what you state above and generally agree that we can't simply have / use whatever we want without some justification of need and purpose. rather, i tried to counter what i see as the primary, or even the sole reason to ban semi-auto's - the NEED of the thing - by most non-gun folks, and to highlight other areas, simplistic though they may be, that could come into question. without trying to sound flip...even though cars are "heavily regulated with licensing, testing, registration, oversight, monitoring (highway patrolling), insurance, etc.", they are also still heavily abused, and by folks with complete and total disregard for human life, both theirs and others. and i would in no way, shape or form be in agreement with banning supercars, high - HP SUV's, muscle-cars, etc. i accept the risk of cars as part-and-parcel of having them in our society.
i personally feel the gun debate would be better served to move away from one side forcing the other to define need, and to focus on how best to keep them out of the hands of criminals via UBC, safety/storage against theft, registration, licensing, etc. most of which i'm ok with.
i think KOD hit the nail on the head in terms of how both sides are closer in agreement that we think we are - but the HOW of the details to implement gun control are the sticking points. i agree with most suggestions throughout this thread, with the exception of an all out ban on semi-auto-'s and high capacity mags, for example.
HR. Eight comes to mind [was in the House last Feb, if i recall correctly]. as i type this i will state up front that my details may not be % accurate....but in a nutshell, many republicans were onboard with UBC and as part of that when convicted felons attempted to purchase firearms and were caught out, then the FFL would be required to notify law enforcement and provide the details [great idea, btw]. R's put in a last minute amendment to include illegal aliens in this process and a notification to ICE - D's went ballistic over this. to be clear - i make no statement here regarding immigration, but rather that a deal seems so close, yet so far in terms of execution. the "all or nothing" philosophy from both sides is the real barrier here, IMO.
Bookmarks