Liberals often wonder aloud why Gun Nuts can't accept a "Reasonable Compromise" on the subject of Gun Rights.
The answer (as they know very well) is that there is no "Reasonable Compromise" on the table. .
Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.
(Note: this is an expansion of my April 01, 2017 article)
Editorial: How many guns do you need? - Daily Press:
Those who oppose the one-per-month rule and similar legislation frequently speak in defense of "responsible gun owners." But isn't that precisely who should be supporting these measures? Shouldn't legal gun owners want laws that target those who circumvent and abuse our state's lax gun laws? If you keep a licensed handgun to protect your home, wouldn't you rather make it harder for that intruder to have an unlicensed one?Gun Control Zombies want to undermine, and ultimately eliminate, our Second Amendment Rights.
They have no respect for it, and cannot understand those of us who consider it as anathema.
It would be different (but only in the degree of outrage generated) should the Gun Control Zombies propose something of a quid pro quo agreement, if only as a beginning discussion point.
But I'm not sure what would be their valid initial proposal:
"Tell you what: we'll give up all the Anti-Gun Pro-Reasonable Gun Control Editorials in the New York Times for the nextHmm ... no, I don't see that happening.
year three monthsweek if you'll just give up your opposition to ... say .... "One Gun A Month". How's that? You could be just like us!"
However, I DO see that as being assumed a "reasonable starting point" for discussion .., from their point of view.
The author of the editorial which began this thesis seems to be thoroughly encamped in the community which would accept the (farcical) proposal as "reasonable".
(I'm not calling him a "Gun Control Zombie", I'm only saying that his comments feed the political viewpoint which might eventually lead to even more infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.)
This is why he proposes that a "One Gun A Month" law is not only reasonable, but in his opinion, a private citizen who opposes it is not a "responsible gun owner."
He thinks that the proper goal is for everyone to become a "Licensed Gun Owner"... and do just what he is told; no more, no less.
He has no idea why any gun owner/private citizen would find that offensive. We could tell him, but he wouldn't understand
"Just one little bite; is that too much to ask?"