Login

There's No Reason to Compromise on the Gun Issue

Abortionists kill more kids each year than mass shooters, but let's talk about the latter and not the former.

There's a pretty healthy consensus in the country that we could expand background check requirements for gun ownership. There is a bipartisan congressional consensus to ban the bump stock, but the congressmen involved in drafting the legislation got too clever by half and tried to ban handguns in the language.

There are actually lots of bipartisan deals that could be had, but there is no reason and conservatives know it. There is, for example, a bipartisan consensus to ban abortions after twenty weeks in this country. But that won't happen either for the same reason.

The media and left always demand the compromises come from the right without ever giving up anything of their own.

"Now is not the time to talk about abortion," a news anchor might say. But then there is never a time the media wants to talk about that issue. The media demands conservatives come on TV and defend their supposedly indefensible position on gun control, then treats abortionists as heroes when they kill more kids each year than mass shooters.

So there's no point in compromise on the issue. The left/media only what the right to move in their direction on these issues. They do not treat conservative positions with good faith, honesty, or candor. The media will focus on guns for a week following a mass shooting, but can barely give the March for Life the time of day. The media wants to spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on the boy who wants to pee in the girl's bathroom as if he is a civil rights pioneer, but never wants to focus on the Christian who might lose her business for not wanting to provide goods and services to a gay wedding. Well, in fairness, they will focus on that lady, but only to portray her as a bigot.

There is just no point in conservatives compromising on guns or any other issue because the left/media idea of a compromise is where the right concedes the left's points. There is no real effort to find middle ground or common ground.

So media outlets can claim Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others are hiding from CNN and don't want to answer "tough" questions. The reality is there is no point. CNN anchors will use liberal definitions of mass shootings and demand Republicans cave on second amendment issues. But you'll never then hear them ask the same of the left on abortion or respect for Christian small businesses or anything else.

The media is not reporting the news. The media is trying to steer the national conversation left. So there is no trust on the right to even have a conversation. And I don't blame the right for refusing to engage.

I have been a regular reader of Erick's for many years, going back to Red State. We don't always agree, but I appreciate his candor and fairness on many issues, especially his willingness to criticize politicians or arguments from any party. We need more of that in this country as allegiance to political tribes prevents the open and honest debates necessary to address tough subjects. Unfortunately, abortion is one of the only issues where we always disagree. My libertarian leanings make it very difficult to support any government control over a woman's body. It's her right to choose at the end of the day. Does that mean I won't accept any laws or regulations that impact abortion? Of course not. It's important to ensure that procedures are performed by properly trained and licensed medical personnel using facilities that satisfy requirements designed to protect the health and safety of the woman (but not trap laws that are intentionally drafted to make abortion services difficult if not impossible to provide). Also, I don't believe abortions should be permitted past the point where the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, except in situations where the health of the woman is in jeopardy, or it is discovered that the fetus suffers from incurable medical conditions (which is why the AMA won't support a post-20 week ban without exceptions). I ultimately view most of Erick's position as stemming from his religious beliefs and, as an atheist, I don't find that position to be persuasive, even though I respect it. Using this as an excuse not to accept reasonable efforts to make this country safer with respect to firearms seems bizarre though. There is an epidemic of gun violence in this country that is impacting schools on an unacceptably regular basis. If we can make even small improvements by instituting universal background checks or eliminating bump stocks than we should do it. I just can't support holding back on those improvements as part of a broader negotiation on unrelated subjects.

That number is about 45%, maybe higher. There is about 45% on the other side, maybe higher. The true center is very, very small. I am referring to the center as people that politically flip back and forth between parties and do a mix-and-match. That doesn't include people that used to be a Democrat, finally had enough and stopped. Or vice versa. We those people every cycle moving in one direction or another. I am also not referring to self identifying labels, because more people claim to independent than really are. I am also not referring to the guy that once voted for a Republican for the County Commission, so now he claims he is a centrist. There is a very tiny middle. Turnout is how elections are won more so than winning Independents. Romney won independents and still lost because Obama had a superior turnout.

You win a majority of the country by intelligently explaining the issue and why our side supports that policy. We implement good policy and the people will respond (see the boost from the implementation of the tax cut). We put quality people out that can communicate these ideas. We don't cede the narrative to the left. We tend to always argue on the defensive. For example, the question is asked "Why can't we ban _.?" "Does anyone really need ___?" Instead of answering that question, we should ask, "How is banning __ going to keep something bad from happening? How does it make it better? The Constitution prohibits the government from fringing on the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms. Are you proposing a Constitutional amendment that would allow the government to do this?" The left rarely had to defend their territory and explain how their ideas will work. They are drummed up on emotion and then coated with hysterics. Anyone that questions the effectiveness, is labeled a hater, racists, biggot, or asked if they want children to die (which they never seem to ask the abortionists). Demonization is done because they can't win the battle of ideas. We are fools for allowing it to happen. We should simply refuse to argue on false premises at all.

I don't think Erick was saying that the right shouldn't try to compromise on any gun issue because of abortion, he was making the point that the two issues are the same in that the left is only willing to compromise if the right moves their way. They offer nothing in return. Immigration could be added to that list. A lot of the GOP Plans have a lot of stuff the Democrats want, but they refuse to give an inch. That is contrasted with the GOP that caved on almost everything under Obama, even as a majority party in Congress, if the Democrats would just pat them on the head. Sometimes they wouldn't even do that.

As to the viability on abortion, I see how libertarians get there. In this country, our right to life is protected as inherent. So the question becomes when does life begin? I will argue at conception, because there is no other point that you can make life. It must begin at the beginning. It can't begin before the beginning or after the beginning. Setting that point aside, and focus on other metrics. If we use viability, that changes as technology and medicine progress. So in essence, a baby born in 1988 at 24 weeks is not a life with no rights and a baby born in 2018 at 24 weeks is a life because the baby can be viable. The other issue is that the hospital is full of people who are medically not viable, yet still considered alive. Also, doctors and hospitals are often wrong about viability. How many times have we heard stories of people that were not going to make it, yet somehow they did. Viability is an opinion, which shifts from person to person and year to year. We should not base something as fundamental as if a person can be killed or not based on a differing opinion. At least go to something that is measurable, definitive and certain to lay the marker down. What do hospitals, paramedics, etc. use to determine whether someone is alive? Heart beat. If they arrive on the scene and the person has a heartbeat, they are alive. If not, and it is recent, they will try and restore that heart beat (or as we often call it, bring the person back to life). If they cannot bring the heartbeat back, then the person is dead. The presence/absence of a heartbeat is a much better metric to determine life or death than viability, pain or any other arbitrary measure.

Twenty 1st graders were shot dead, and nothing changed. Four dozen concert-goers were shot dead, and nothing changed. GOP Congressmen were shot at on a ball field (and in the case of Rep. Scalise, wounded within an inch of his life), and nothing changed. With apologies to Churchill, we "jaw-jaw" while somewhere in the U.S., another lone wolf plots his own "war-war".

Yeah, there's problems in Africa or some place as well and unless we sort those out first, I can't see what we can do about high caliber weapons in schools. Sad.

My overall problem with the "life begins at conception" isn't just about the mother, it's about everything that comes with that idea. If a zygote has rights equal to any born human being, it greatly alters our society. Every miscarriage has to be investigated as a potential homicide. Alcohol is bad for unborn babies, so pregnant women can't get serves. And all women have to take pregnancy tests before they get served. And men have to go through a "penis check" to make sure that they're men and not women passing as men to get a beer. Foods will have to go through much more stringent regulation to make sure they're good for the unborn. Too much sugar is assault. Smoking in public is assault with a deadly weapon. And all this stuff will cost money, so we'll need to raise taxes. Does the GOP care so much about the unborn that they'll turn into pro-life Democrats to create a LITERAL "nanny state?" I guess we'll see.

Those are all ridiculous arguments because every one of them happens today, to people already born, including children, and these are not crimes. Only the left wants to create special classes of people. The unborn are people, entitled to the same rights. No more or no less. As I mentioned above, if don't agree with conception then fine. How is someone with a heartbeat not alive? That is the definition used for everyone else to determine life. Instead we get bogged down in pain senses and "viabilty", which are all arbitrary. We either have life or we don't. There are no half states of being.

2

Everyone wants to solve the problem. Many of the solutions offered won't actually solve anything. The two root causes of all these shootings are evil and mental illness. Yet we focus on guns, security, background checks, arming more people, etc. Mental illness is hard to solve, so it's just ignored. Evil is easy to solve with divine intervention. We have always had a hard time with it though, throughout history.

Fine, life begins at conception. Actually, life begins before conception since the sperm and egg both have to be "alive" to turn into the zygote that turns into a baby. The real question isn't "when does life begin" so much as "when does sentience begin?" With sentience out of the picture, the fetus doesn't matter. I'm fine killing non-sentient fetuses. Hell, I often eat aborted non-sentient fetuses. I prefer my non-sentient aborted fetuses to be scrambled and like to eat them with a side of bacon and some hash browns.

If the school were a uterus the GOP would care about protecting the contents

Go do the math about guns, and if you apply the least amount of reason to your statement, you might change it. With the amount of guns that end up in crimes, of any kind, that number is so small, on the order of hundredths of a percentage of guns, in general, among the US population. You can't legislate crime out of existence. All you will do with another gun law is make more people criminals, and mostly criminals who would have never committed crimes with a gun. Compare that to the number of "Acceptable murders", namely abortions. How can a species walk so supposedly unknowing into destroying it's own? Guns are not the problem. At best, your only excuse about those twenty dead first graders, is that the killer was crazy. Now, the GOP congressman is no reason to go and ban firearms, either. You could have argued, and probably been correct, that it was an ideology that caused that shooting. It is also the same ideology that wants to go and ban firearms. Reconcile that.

The only protection for students is guns on campus. Uniformed officers, plain cloths, and or conceal carry by some faculty. Guns are only one type of many weapons that can be used. The causes for the violence are: mental illness, suspension, bullying, domestic issue moving to the school, being offended, terrorism, and other reasons. Mental illness can be drug caused or drug controlled. It can be long term or short term. There should be a warning like driving or operating equipment with certain medication. Background checks are only a start. Guns can be owned for a number of years. I have lost track of how many times the FBI had the shooter under surveillance at one time. They might have spent too much time chasing Russian ghost and stopping Trump. Guns were not involved in Oklahoma City or Boston.

You are absolutely right in that it is worthless to compromise with the left. A bipartisan deal means the conservatives capitulated.

I'll get serious about so-called Gun Control when FedGov gets serious about the incredible number of un-prosecuted & convicted felons beaking Federal Laws when they try to purchase a legal firearm, using Fed. Form 4473, no less.

So would the armed teachers have ARs also? And they carry them while they teach? And do they get some kind of extra hazard pay for being required to return fire?

All for protecting the contents. You up for having armed guards and/or teachers in school? That's what protection looks like to the clear-minded. Israel, surrounded by the literal epicenter of crazy hatred, realized back in a tragic Elementary school hostage situation in 1974 that "action" meant "protection" not anti-protection. Their guards are civilians and veterans trained not only in firearms but also in detecting/ preventing suspicious activity. Leaving schools as soft "no gun zone" targets is just stupid. Gun-grabbing Congress-critters have gun-toting body guards, so if that life is so precious, why not protect the progeny of their constituents.

As for comparing the purposeful "legal murder" of hundreds of thousands of babies a year to a crazy person breaking the law murdering children in a school, well, that's just comparing grapes and elephant poop. Big difference.

Abortion is the murder of one baby by choice of the mother. Mass shootings are the murder of many by choice of the killer to use a gun. So we let one side cancel the other and do nothing about the murder of the innocent!! How much longer will God hold off on judging America for it's mounting, grievous sins??

Actually, by life we mean a life unique from the mother or father. No prolifer thinks spleen cells have a right to life. Rather while sperm or ova are part of a male or female person, sharing the same genetic code (halved of course) as all the other cells in a persons body, a fetus, meaning little one, is alive, but unlike a spleen cell is a unique self-sustaining human life.

And the issue is not sentience which means awareness of subjectivity, I hope, because when you are asleep in certaint stages of sleep you are not self-aware. Likewise those who are sedated, in a coma, or newborns are not sentient but only potentially sentient. Of course is the little one, aka fetus. Assuming you do believe you have a right to life when sleeping or anesthetized, do you really mean that only those who have experience sentience have human rights, 2yrs old plus? Can we kill the handicapped who never attain selfawareness? How about the old, injured, or infirmed who MAY never regain it?

Stories