Comment by sudioStudio64 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudioStudio64 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have never... and I mean this... never heard an anti-gun person say that we should go door to door and take guns from people. I'm just saying.

I take your point, I really do, but I think that you are overestimating the desire to have a meaningful debate on the progun side. The two sides are not equally obstructive or vitriolic. They just aren't. Perhaps you have heard people like me... some guy on a forum... say something bombastic, but the progun leadership are purveyors of extreme fear mongering and slander of their fellow citizens that disagree with them. They equate compromise with appeasement and negotiation with collaboration. Gun control people don't go around threatening armed rebellion.

I'm sorry for going on, but I get really tired of the way that no one seems to be able to change their mind. A large chunk of the vehement progun crowd are also fundamentalists who think the world is six thousand years old. I grew up around them. I'm very clear about their position.

Joe the Plumber: "Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights"

I appreciate your point and what you are trying to say, please don't think I'm being disrespectful... In fact, I'm kind of typing out loud, if you will. I'm still coming to grips with my own changes of position on the issue. Its really difficult. Its such a foundational issue where I'm from. Its at least as big a deal as coming to grips with being an atheist. Its really about identity at a core level... and being able to really look at those deeply held ideas in the face of a life that contradicts them.

My bad...i'll stop. Cheers.

I think it's just a case of the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme voices. There are a lot of sensible gun owners out there, as there are a lot of people who only wish for better enforcement of gun control laws or better background checks.

As far as people who want to ban guns outright, there are certainly people who believe fervently in that, but I think a lot of those people don't necessarily think about the enormous financial and human cost of doing so. They look at a country like Japan and say, "See, if we ban guns like they did..." But ultimately if someone seeks to confiscate guns by force, they're advocating for violence because there are many, many people who would kill and die for the 2nd amendment. Most people don't see it that way, but in practice that is what it would come down to.

I agree that a lot of extreme pro-gun folks are opposed to any and all sorts of compromise. And you're right that there is a significant contingent "Earth is 5000 years old" people in there. But there are a lot of liberal gun owners, white-collar gun owners, and everything in between.

Either way the discourse is not helped by coming to the table with intentional falsehoods designed to scare people who don't know better. Whether it's 'Obama is trying to take over Texas' or 'Assault weapons are to blame for mass shootings'.

I agree that a lot of extreme pro-gun folks are opposed to any and all sorts of compromise.

Can you specify any compromise offered to us by the gun grabbers in, say, the last 50 years, that wasn't of the form "we'll only take half of your arm off"?

Maybe the Firearms Owners Protection Act of '86, which had a poison pill ending sales of new machine guns to civilians? Nowadays lots of gun owners who weren't watching the BATF exterminate gun culture in the '70s and early-mid '80s say we shouldn't have accepted that deal for the precedent it established, which was furthered in "assault weapons" bans (prior to that there were no firearms technically banned from civilian ownership, even if NFA arms like machine guns had onerous acquisition regimes ... which the BATF is even now trying to make more onerous/impossible).

Stepping back a bit, after, oh, 81 years of bad faith (going back to the NFA of '34 which attempted a de facto ban on handgun transfers for all but the rich), might we be somewhat justified in not being willing to give up another fraction of an inch? Especially when we have members of our community like my father who remember how things used to be, without problems? (OK, he was 4 years old when it passed, but you get the idea, e.g. when he was in high school in mid-late '40s he and others would store their guns in their school lockers while attending to make hunting before or after more convenient, and "school shooting" were unheard of.)

81 years of bad faith? It's that kind of language that makes this difficult.

Onerous acquisition regimes were put in place for machine guns because of the psychopaths that were running from county to county gunning down law enforcement officers. That's the thing, the law in question wasn't a beachhead to take more of your stuff...they may have actually wanted to make sure that we didn't have a wave of new Machine Gun Kelly's running around.

Does your dad remember how it used to be for everyone or just people like you? I'm not trying to be too facetious, here. My dad mentions a time when you could take a sack of squirrels to the doctor for payment as an example of the good ole' days...but I don't think that's a good idea just because it worked for him and my grandfather. (Though I still like squirrel stew.)

Many, many, things are different between now and the 40 s including all of the weird social/psychological pressures that are at the root of many school shootings. Hell, when I was a kid I remember seeing people have deer rifles in their gun rack in their truck at school. (I was very little.) Would that be a good idea today? Surely, I don't have to answer that question...because things have changed. Radically.

What would be a place where we could compromise? Is it even possible? What's an area where you think there is some give and take on?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com