Preacherman
Member
To all the "absolutists" who've posted - please name one (any one) State where you've been able to gain any RKBA improvements at all through intransigence and insistence on absolute rights. I'll wait while you look for one - but it'll be a loooooonng wait... because there isn't one, as far as I'm aware.
We've gone from virtually no legal CCW in the '60's to legal CCW, subject to limitations, in over 40 states, and unrestricted CCW in two states. That's a heck of a good track record for the "moderate" approach. Along the way, we've had to deal with other challenges to the RKBA, including Clinton's assault weapons ban and other restrictions. I'd say that overall, we're in far better shape today than we were in the late 1960's.
To quote the ancient sage: "Politics is the art of the possible". We're dealing with a majority of the US population that doesn't understand guns, are afraid of guns, and regard the object (the gun) as being the danger, rather than the wielder of the object. The only way to change this is by education and by example. The best possible example is lawful CCW holders carrying day by day, not going postal on bystanders, defending themselves against criminals, and generally being portrayed as the good citizens that they almost universally are. This example has led to the gradual extension of CCW "privileges" (yes, I know, from a strict constructionist viewpoint they're rights, not privileges, but remember - this is the real world we're dealing with!) to most of the USA. Even in California, with its utterly ridiculous gun legislation, there are far more counties issuing CCW permits than those that refuse to do so, or place unreasonable obstacles in the path of those wanting a permit.
I'm afraid I have a hard time with fundamentalists, whether religious, political, RKBA, or any other flavor. The fundamentalist insists that his/her interpretation of the "sacred text" (in this case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights) is the only true way, and that dissenters must be converted or removed. Unfortunately, the majority of voters in this country, and the entire court system, and most of our legislators, don't agree with this perspective, and will (and have) shut it down whenever it's reared its (to them) ugly head. This is the reality we face. If you can't cope with reality, well, I'm very sorry for you, but the world is not about to change to suit you... so you can either adjust to reality, or retreat into your castle, pull up the drawbridge behind you, and refuse to interact with reality at all.
That's the way it is, folks. We may not like it; it may not be ideal; but it's incontrovertibly the reality we face.
We've gone from virtually no legal CCW in the '60's to legal CCW, subject to limitations, in over 40 states, and unrestricted CCW in two states. That's a heck of a good track record for the "moderate" approach. Along the way, we've had to deal with other challenges to the RKBA, including Clinton's assault weapons ban and other restrictions. I'd say that overall, we're in far better shape today than we were in the late 1960's.
To quote the ancient sage: "Politics is the art of the possible". We're dealing with a majority of the US population that doesn't understand guns, are afraid of guns, and regard the object (the gun) as being the danger, rather than the wielder of the object. The only way to change this is by education and by example. The best possible example is lawful CCW holders carrying day by day, not going postal on bystanders, defending themselves against criminals, and generally being portrayed as the good citizens that they almost universally are. This example has led to the gradual extension of CCW "privileges" (yes, I know, from a strict constructionist viewpoint they're rights, not privileges, but remember - this is the real world we're dealing with!) to most of the USA. Even in California, with its utterly ridiculous gun legislation, there are far more counties issuing CCW permits than those that refuse to do so, or place unreasonable obstacles in the path of those wanting a permit.
I'm afraid I have a hard time with fundamentalists, whether religious, political, RKBA, or any other flavor. The fundamentalist insists that his/her interpretation of the "sacred text" (in this case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights) is the only true way, and that dissenters must be converted or removed. Unfortunately, the majority of voters in this country, and the entire court system, and most of our legislators, don't agree with this perspective, and will (and have) shut it down whenever it's reared its (to them) ugly head. This is the reality we face. If you can't cope with reality, well, I'm very sorry for you, but the world is not about to change to suit you... so you can either adjust to reality, or retreat into your castle, pull up the drawbridge behind you, and refuse to interact with reality at all.
That's the way it is, folks. We may not like it; it may not be ideal; but it's incontrovertibly the reality we face.