Breitbart
On March 19 Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America held a rally at the Iowa statehouse to oppose GOP efforts to repeal the current requirement that Iowans obtain a permit before purchasing a handgun.
Republican House members rightly view this permit-to-purchase requirement as an infringement on gun rights. And instead of offering a counter point, Moms Demand Action’s Ellyn Grimm said people need to understand that gun control and the 2nd Amendment are “not mutually exclusive.”
The Des Moines Register reports Grimm’s exact words: “We can protect the Second Amendment and have common sense solutions to reduce gun violence. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas, and I’m tired of our legislature and society treating it like it is.”
"The repeal of the permit-to-purchase requirement — as well as other pro-gun measures — passed the Iowa House by a vote of 75-24 two weeks ago. Moms Demand Action immediately complained that the repeal of a permit-to-purchase means Iowans could begin buying guns without a background check — the same way almost every other American has done since the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 — if the repeal passes the senate.
ReplyDeleteThe repeal of a permit-to-purchase will actually force Iowans to go through a background check more often than they currently do. As state representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley) explained, Iowans with a permit-to-purchase have to go through a background check annually to keep the permit up to date. But once the cards are repealed, Iowans will have to go through a background check every time they purchase a gun from a gun store — which could be numerous times each year."
Gun control groups have had to go through some changes in reimaging and rebranding themselves to try to widen their support base, especially in light of the growing percentage of citizens placing gun rights as a higher priority than gun control legislation.
One example of this is the currently named Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), which a while back went by the name, National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
As for the MOMs spokesperson making this statement,
“We can protect the Second Amendment and have common sense solutions to reduce gun violence. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas, and I’m tired of our legislature and society treating it like it is.”
All advocacy groups fight fiercely for their individual causes. And many groups advocating restrictions on various freedoms tend to throw out the "common sense" term in their pursuit of these restrictions.
What usually happens for example when someone wants to pass "common sense" restrictions on First Amendment rights or the right to an abortion. You see much the same behaviors from advocates on both sides as you do on the gun debate.
By the way, how do you like the not so subliminal advertising for Project Childsafe?
Please, enough with the abortion comparisons.
DeleteThe question is simple. "Agree or disagree?"
Isn't your reasonable attitude proof that you agree? Don't you gladly accept certain gun restrictions? Isn't it really a question of what's meant by "reasonable restrictions? and "common sense?"
As much as I'd like to be able outright agree or disagree I don't think its possible given the grey fluid nature of the argument. Reasonable restrictions and common sense as you describe them are one of those situations where you can ask 10 people and get 13different explanations. And example is, would requiring training after purchase be reasonable? Or would requiring training to purchase be reasonable? And I will say though the abortion comparison is legitimate because it does illustrate that many want it free and clear no restrictions whatsoever, and are celebrated for it but when the same logic is applied to the 2nd amendment they are called extremists, gun loons and gun nuts. But back to gun control, it's a difficult one to adress because as I've said before it's very easy to get into the self justifying mode in which if the restrictions we have aren't working it means we need more so they will work and if the restrictions we have are working it means we need more so they will work even better.
Delete"Please, enough with the abortion comparisons."
DeleteMike, I use First Amendment issues and abortion as examples because anytime restrictions on either are suggested, the intensity of the rhetoric and the unwillingness to compromise closely matches that found in debating gun legislation.
The problem is that as often happens in these debates, both sides are heavily invested in their position and neither are willing to give ground. And in the real world, a majority are siding with the protection of gun rights over gun control.
As for safe storage laws, having them in place no more guarantees the actual practice any more than having laws against lying on an ATF 4473. Especially in light of the dismal rates of prosecution.
Keep in mind that just like gun rights advocates fight tooth and nail against any perceived restrictions of gun rights, gun control advocates fight just as hard for any expansion of gun rights, and often they can be quite contradictory.
No simple answers here, huh?
Delete" And in the real world, a majority are siding with the protection of gun rights over gun control."
DeleteReally SS? I thought it was agreed that a majority of Americans want background checks. There have been numerous national polls that show a majority of Americans want background checks. That's a gun control issue.
The purpose of "gun control" is the violation of rights. It does nothing else, and was never intended to.
ReplyDeleteSpoken like the true fanatic that you are. Is there really not a single gun restriction that you'd agree with?
DeleteSpoken like the true fanatic that you are.
DeleteJust checked my mirror, Mikeb. Nary a "fanatic" in sight. Still.
Is there really not a single gun restriction that you'd agree with?
I don't object to banning possession of guns by people while they are incarcerated, either by the justice system or for mental health reasons. I would point out,by the way, that this is consistent with my belief that all "gun control" is an abridgment of rights. The incarcerated, though, have been stripped of many of the rights of free people, and can thus legitimately be disarmed.
Is that it, Kurt? Not a single other restriction?
DeleteJust like religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but some can only hold one thought at a time.
ReplyDelete