Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote for the Detroit Free Press:
So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona's duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn't a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people's will was overturned by a gun.
Here he offers this description of the problem:
I'm not sure who those lefty extremists he's talking about are. Certainly the position on this blog, and the others I know of, is much more reasonable than wanting to disarm EVERYONE.At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.
But we won't. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.
So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week -- three 9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.
And sadly, that, too, reflects the people's will.
On the other hand I recognize the righty paranoia that says "any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters." I find that a fairly commonplace attitude on the pro-gun blogs.
My conclusion, unlike that of Mr. Pitts who has described an even-handed blaming of both extremes, is that the gun-rights advocates are mainly to blame. They block meaningful dialogue at every opportunity. They refuse to bend or compromise. They oppose laws like the VA one-gun-a-month law which diminishes the gun flow into the criminal world.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Name one thing on which you have been willing to compromise. All I hear from the authors on this site is one restriction after another, and finally, Dog Gone has admitted that she sees no right or need to own firearms. Compromise doesn't mean that we give and give and give until you're satisfied. We know that you never will be. If you want compromise, you have to be willing to give up something too.
ReplyDeleteI've told you before, it's not about compromise. We're not horse trading, we're trying to suss out what's right and what's wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut, since you keep coming back to this, how about you keep the suppressors and extra-big magazines and we get the licensing, registration and background checks on private sales?
This is about compromise, since what we're discussing here will have to involve politics. Right and wrong are another matter, and we differ on several details there. But if you want to see laws passed, you have to make deals.
ReplyDelete1. What extra big magazines are you talking about? Cosmopolitan? Not many own magazines of extraordinary size for a firearm, but what your side never seems to understand is that ten isn't the standard number for a lot of guns.
2. Suppressors? Those are heavily regulated, and despite what you've seen in the movies, they aren't a cone of silence. (Any Get Smart fans here?)
But you're not offering anything that we don't already have. What about something new? Universal background checks for universal concealed carry in public--that's something that I'd consider. Again, you have to be willing to give up something to get something in return.