Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
GOP: Collapse on Guns and It’s All Over
Kurt Schlichter has a great post up at TownHall.
“Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let’s also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry.”
This is what I’m talking about when I say that I do not care about the details of the Uvalde shooting, etc. I already know where I stand on an issue that transcends crime and violence from a pro-constitutional point of view.
It’s a good article with plenty of timely political commentary, and I agree with everything in it. If this election is truly the Republicans’ to lose — going flaccid on guns is exactly how to lose it.
Published in General
I think “nice” is just a way to bribe off your opponents for a year or two. Actually, I don’t even think it’s that. It’s gutlessness.
You’re right. I stand corrected.
Yes. I wish there were more questions about why so many existing gun laws are not enforced before anyone threatens to add more. When I bring up with “normal” people that many existing gun laws are not enforced, and that some prosecution offices have policies against enforcing certain categories of existing gun laws (most commonly straw purchase violations), people are surprised, and begin to understand the futility of creating more gun laws.
From the article you cite:
“The shooters are the products of government policies that intentionally remove children from their fathers and proliferate single-mother homes. They are the offspring of the two hatcheries that breed fatherless children: the welfare state and the divorce industry.”
Very interesting. It appears there is a fault in no-fault divorce.
It’s ironic that the 2018 SPLC-inspired DC shooter who took Chik-Fil-A sandwiches with him shot up the Family Research Council.
The slippery slope is a fallacy. We draw lines where it is culturally appropriate. You are arguing that 18 is a magic number. I am saying that 3 years after high school is a magic number. If high school ended at 15, then 18 would be OK.
It’s not my compromise, and I don’t support it. I just pointed out that it can be argued that it could be effective. Just as it can be argued that full confiscation of all firearms in the US would be effective (impossible and unconstitutional, but effective).
I agree. The GOP better not give an inch on 2A related issues with the Dems. If they do they’ll turn the “red wave” into a “purple puddle”. This country cannot afford 2 more years of Democrats running Congress, or even a the GOP barely running it.
So long as we have a bad faith Democrat Party the only reasonable regulation I can see on guns is Constitutional Carry. No lists, no special taxes, no ammo limits, no red flag laws (those are just a pretext, because we can be sure that they will be abused by the Left).
Why isn’t this issue one that should be settled at the State level? We are supposed to be a Federal Republic so let us act as one.
1. Slippery slope is not a fallacy. It is frequently mis-applied, but it is a valid argument in the absence of a limiting principle.
2. You just said the magic word. “Magic”. It is magical thinking to assign a number of years, such as three, or five or ninety. Every number is arbitrary, but is where it is now after the operation of thousands of years of arbitration. Changes require justification — the status quo inhabits a privileged position.
3. You’re bargaining.
Only drop-outs can carry then?
Slippery slopes exist, especially when the Left pays gravity in one direction and there’s not countervailing force. Look at going from legalizing homosexual conduct to Gay Clown Story Hour, claiming that there’s no such thing as sex, and castrating our kids — or even the schools doing it behind our backs. How does one draw the line when chalk is outlawed or otherwise censored or regulated into oblivion?
Added: After all, LGBTransQ+++ started as Lesbian and Gay, and tacked on more and more odd and even non-existent sexual characteristics and definitions as they (and we) progressed down the slope.
Abolish the National Firearms Act? The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibited submachine guns. How about owning your own tank, or howitzer? How do you feel about suitcase nukes? How about allowing a 15 year old to own and operate an AR-15? Okay, how about a 12 year old? Or a 9 year old? Or a 6 year old? Or a 3 year old?
If you do not believe in any limits to bearing arms, the above are the natural extensions of your argument..
First off, 18 is the age of majority. I belive either people are citizens at 18 or they are not. We are muddled on this. Old enough to go to war and all that.
Second, I Have no problem with somebody owning a tank or a howitzer. Anyone who puts the energy and effort into owning and maintaining a tank or howitzer does. not want to do anything stupid with it. That in fact is a stupid argument because we let people own the private planes which could do far more damage to more people than somebody could do with a tank or a howitzer.
Third, 15 year Olds can manage an AR 15 just fine. Some other ages can too. The conservative position would be to leave it up to the parents.
Fourth, suitcase nukes don’t exist.
Fifth, please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government has the power to regulate firearms..
Sixth, you can own an SMG today.
I was going to point to this article as well. He perfectly describes how the posturing and preening of dems is all about scoring political points instead of actually doing anything effective.
WWRD?
On the other hand, they are quite effectively mau-mau-ing a bunch on the right into supporting even more infringement.
Not exactly a “mighty hunter before the Lord”. LOL
The slippery slope is not a fallacy. Have you not noticed how the left uses slippery slope tactics?
We draw lines where it is culturally or morally appropriate. The left draws lines where it is tactically convenient.
You say it’s a fallacy. I’ve seen it working over and over again throughout my decades of political awareness, so I claim it isn’t a fallacy.
My assertion versus your assertion.
I will further assert that adult responsibilities aren’t learned prior to assuming them, unless under the authority of another. Any delay past 18 simply delays the corresponding responsible behavior. Your confused policy preferences are contributing to the infantilization of our young adults.
In my not-so-humble opinion, there shouldn’t be any age restrictions on purchasing/owning/carrying firearms. There should only be rules (selective and graduated) on adult supervision of minors with guns. That is the only controlled environment where future adults can learn responsible firearms ownership.
Because it’s the role of government to confer the rights of ownership — or not — on the people? And not to protect the (natural) rights of the people? You can use the excuse that you’re not a constitutional lawyer I guess.
Awesome.
What Would Romney Do?
March with BLM against the second amendment.
Look, my right to defend myself comes from God, natural rights or whatever you need to tell yourself to make you feel good about it. But they exist because I exist. All this restrictions are just governments way to restrict me from having the right to defend myself. And yes, I have a right to own a howitzer, tank or naval battle ship. I always have.
I have had guns for so long I do not remember not having one. So your age question is silly. It is like asking me if a 9 or 6 or 3 year old can have a shovel. What age a person should have a gun depends on the person and the environment. I have been squirrel / rabbit hunting since I was maybe 10. Though that is a guess since we all owned guns and knew how to use them.
As for the suitcase nuke. It has never been considered a 2a thing but sure I will take it if I can. From my point of view nothing is excessive for me to use to protect me and mine.
But let’s be honest what we are talking about here. You are not talking about making it so none of these weapons no longer exist. You just want to make it so the citizens such as I can not have them but only a select group of people the government / liberals want to…
Precisely. We teach them that the world is ending in 12 years or whatever it is now, that everything bad is their fault and there’s no way they can ever make amends or apologize for it. We make it “cool” to pretend to be un-masculine. Then we wonder why they commit suicide, overdose on drugs, or shoot up schools.
This is all the end result of the decades-long War on Boys. And now we’re in the endgame stages.
Garry Robbins. You’re playing their game again. Is anyone proposing any of the things you say? Of course not. Are folks proposing doing away with guns. Yes. Will that work in the interests of the vast majority of Americans? No. Will it work in the favor of folks who commit crimes? Yes. Will it work in the interests of those who want a totalitarian government? Yes. The question is simple and our history was pretty clear.
Yup. And what’s the only way that a white boy can escape all this relentless blame? Declare that he’s gay. Suddenly he’s a member of a privileged group instead of the target of hate.
Let’s see if I can make everyone happy by playing the shooting blame game. Choose your villain. NRA, Putin, Trump, Zelenskyy, Biden, Video games, Covid, or insert your own favorite villain. There are thousands out there besides the actual shooter.