I have no problems with gun ownership, just the laws concerning ownership. I like Obama most of the time, am a Democrat, and I own a multitude of guns to hunt, and play with. I was actually an NRA member, until they it was taken over by freaks. So, don't label all liberals as anti-gun. I just want laws that will hinder murders
I'm the same way. However, pro-gun activists are largely a response to the anti-gun side which often makes clear that no individual has a legitimate interest in owning a firearm. Then they'll try to sound reasonable by saying "sure, if you're a sportsman (
mumble, mumble, spots clubs,
mumble, keep your gun there)"
Rights are always tempered by balancing competing interests. For example, our right to free speech is subject to time/manner/place restrictions. You can stand on public property and shout your political views. But, you can't do that from your rooftop at 2AM (denying your neighbors their right to enjoy their property, pursue happiness by getting up in 4 hours to go to work).
When the other side unmistakably denies any legitimate interest to balance, you're likely to oppose any reasonable controls. They'll just be "one step toward banning individual ownership."
This leads to an absurd condition where activist groups actually capitalize on the most vitriolic language of their counterparts. The NRA has paid royalties to HCI (Brady's organization) to reprint excerpts which will keep the NRA in a "circle the wagons" mindset, donating in response to a "hidden conspiracy," etc.
A good example of how absurd our policy decisions are: After months of the 1968 CGA going nowhere, RFK was killed with a handgun. The result was the GCA regulating long guns. A few months later MLK was killed with a long gun -- leading to the GCA being amended to regulate handguns.
IMO, we would be better served by a parliamentary political system which recognizes that we've become a specialized citizenry. We no longer live in the simple world which afforded universal participation (something our congressional system depended upon). We now have phenomenal lack of participation -- and policy driven by a small but loud percentage of the population. (It's even worse than that because politicians don't really agree with the loud minority. They just pander to get elected -- then work together to advance corporate, multinational interests without alienating the loud minority too much.).
The topic of parliamentary versus congressional is very interesting. It gets into our origins in Civic Republicanism, how we've departed from that principle, whether it's possible to reinvigorate it. A parliamentary system is usually criticized for taking away "voting for the person." Instead you vote for the party, and the individuals are expected to carry out the party's goals. That sounds like a lack of control, opportunity for corruption. But, when a tiny fraction of the most passionate citizens drive policy, when political parties can use individual members as a diversion ("we would have blocked budget increases, but some of our members voted... Next time around, we need more members who share this goal."), how is that not corruption?
Twice I've seen the far Right agitated into overhaul mode -- only to be disappointed by the new freshmen politicians becoming co-opted. The hotheaded constituency loses its passion, withdraws from politics, and the political parties continue serving their true constituents (corporations, global interests). I'd be willing to trade this with parliamentary politics where the party is held responsible for its goal. One member can't be held as the "odd ball" holding everyone hostage.
