I am not willing to do anything. Exactly what about the current system vs the new system they are proposing would change the problems as you see them? Your opinion may be different, but none of the things they are suggesting would help. The simple fact is Connecticut already has more of the new rules that the gun control crowd wants to implement and it still happened there. How would nationwide expansion of failed laws help the situation?
I am not willing to budge at all. Why should I sacrifice something I hold dear for something that you don't like? I don't think I should need a permit to get together with 50 people at a park. However, I do recognize some responsibility to notify the city in case I need to have police or the like there and that is the real purpose of the permit I believe. You don't need a permit to simply stand in the street with a sign and yell or be retarded. Registering guns isn't even close to that sort of situation that would have a reason for registration. Gun registration is simply a guise for controlling what I do in my private life in my house. I don't walk down the street or shoot in the park - why should I have to register my private property? I am not paying taxes or using public property in my use of my private property like with a car.
I disagree with the people protesting at funerals - I find it disrespectful. However, they can do what they like and I accept that. Do you believe a parent should not get to decide the proper medical treatment for their child? Talk about slippery slope. If you start forcing people to do some medical treatments - where does it end? Is it mandatory to get flu shots and mandatory to get a lapband if you are fat?
I am unwilling to advocate regulation. I am willing to fight against it in whatever way necessary.
And so my points remain. You are unwilliing to do anything to alleviate the situation or even curtail the mounting sentiment against you and your unwillingness. Further, I stated that the gun toters see children as collateral damage to their right to keep and bear - your statement underlines my own.
None of the "new rules" apply to the manufacture of weapons and the root of the problem is the continuing influx of potent,powerful and deadly weapons.
I see that you do as most in your position, you turn this into the theoretical, you claim that you shouldn't have to give up your "rights" - rights that are subject to interpretation except by you. You have no right to 100 round magazines, you have no right to semi or fully automatic weapons and yet you group all of those things into a "right". Further you try to claim that your "right" is in balance with "something I don't like". This is not a question of what I "like" or dislike but one of the death of children by the arm full. In fact you now actually DO, in some instances need a permit to stand alone in a public place with a plackard.
You are dancing around the fact that with all rights come responsibilities and for the most part the gun toters don't believe they have any responsibility in the matter - everythig to them is that slippery slope, every attempt to regulate, oversee, or control their absolute desire to have all of the guns they wish, to have all of the methods of quick death they wish is somehow different than all other rights enumerated in the Constitution - and this attitude one day will result in actions they will regret.
That you don't do this or that, that you personaly won't ever shoot up a schoolyard is not at issue here. What is, is that the laws or lack of regulation surrounding your particular right enables others to do what you yourself might not.
Do I believe that a parent should have total say as to how their child is medicaly treated? no, I do not. If there is a method, a commonly accepted method of treating a child for a life threatening condition then that child should be treated no matter what religious rights the parents claim.
"where does it end"? is the cry but we have a society that is perfectly capable of determining where "it ends" and that society does so often. This slippery slope idea that is so often interjected into every debate about proper and properly administered regulation is a false argument that presuposes a society that is boundless and incapable of basic limits. You do not live in such a society. If we say - in residential areas you are not to drive your car faster than 45 miles per hour - where does it end? at 30 mph? 20? perhaps, according to your slippery slope we will outlaw cars at any speed - we have yet to do so.
So long as you are unwilling to limit your own actions in the interest of your continued right to keep and bear then it is evident that you should not abide by any self limits nor should others. This is the sort of ultimate anarchy that governments finally root out simply because the majority are tired of their constant refusal to abide by any limit at all.
