Man, that wildlife safari on the last page was sure something...
Back on point:
"I view licensing of firearms the same way I view another right: voting.
Lots of stupid people vote. When stupid people vote, sometimes we get bad leaders, and sometimes as a result people are killed in the cogs of history.
Should citizens study before they vote? Absolutely.
Has it been ruled in court that we do not need tests and licenses to keep people from voting? Yes.
A good citizen studies, but he doesn't try to take rights from others without due process."
A very good point, this. Think about it; if you can't restrict voters or gun owners from free exercise of their rights, your only alternative is to convince them to willingly adopt practices you deem beneficial to them/everyone. No use of force necessary. Unable to restrain the many because of the actions of the lowest common denominator, the only other option is to work toward elevating more individuals to a higher standard. In short,
real social progress rather than domestication of humans.
So very much of modern so-called "progressive" ideology is founded in laziness; people are assumed to be lazy and therefore require direction, and convenient solutions are erected ad hoc to address the solution as a result of lazy thinking. It's
hard to trust complete strangers, and it's
hard to have faith in the abilities of others to do right instead of wrong. It's the hardest when that trust and faith are betrayed, and both individuals and the system suffer harm from it. A lot of work must be performed by all involved to maintain that faith and trust, and repair the occasional breach. But the rewards reaped when, the vast majority of the time, we are able to pursue our mutual interests together without conflict, far surpass the inevitable black mark or tragedy. Far from denying these occasional trials, to work in spite of them gives the struggle for progress meaning; I will
not accept that we should forsake our responsibilities as men because of a few individuals unworthy of the term.
It ultimately comes down to whether you believe Man is destined for greatness or barbarity. The funny thing is, that logic dictates any system erected by men destined for barbarity should be likewise doomed, so how could they ever possibly govern themselves? And how could they have ever built what we have today, were they at their core irredeemable wild animals? The only way to square the philosophical circle is to change human nature, or accept that there are greater and lesser forms of human (and expunge the latter). Though
vehemently denied after the logical conclusion of this train of thought was reached in the 40's, there remains a recurring thread of forcible "improvement" or purification of mankind inherent in so many of the statists' ambitions.
"And there was no law requiring anyone to teach me to eat."
Don't worry, obesity will compel statists to pass those laws soon enough...
"The point being that if this becomes a reality and someone does something like happened in Sandy Hook the hammer will fall harder than ever."
There aren't many zero-sum games in the world, but politics is certainly one of them. We have been
eating away that sledge hammer for over two decades, now; there is very little left they can do, nationally. There is
nothing left for them to do in more states every year, it seems. There are still front lines, though, so we still suffer occasional local losses, but there are few places where they are capturing territory*. Sandy Hook was the last chance they had for the foreseeable future, unless we can conceive of something truly more horrifying (which would likely be on such a scale as to provoke some other societal changes far more alarming than gun restrictions, a la
Reichstag)
"And in todays world there are way to many kids growing up with little to no parental guidance."
*sigh* culture warriors... What aspect of a person's life
don't you want some say in? Seriously; go on and tell us.
TCB
*Washington State wasn't nearly as pro-gun as all the alarmists on our side like to believe. You can't own
any part of a machine gun, for instance (meaning no parts kits allowed until you convert the pieces to semi-auto outside the state, even if you lack the means/intent to create a machine gun; an even higher bar than is set by the ATF). They just had such a large rural/outdoor scene that the issue hadn't been aggressively targeted before. Seattle/Portland have dominated the state forever, and both have always been very anti gun; Bloomberg finally paid them off to exert that authority outside their county lines (I got the feeling from living there, that a lot of the people in the urban areas aren't even aware of the rest of the state, hence the lack of meddling compared to, say, NY). I honestly wonder if, absent his cash, the urban legislators won't rapidly become bored looking outside their Shining Cities and fail to carry on the agenda unassisted.