Hi HankT,
I read your post, and read the link to the whole "HankT's Theory Of Inverse Firearm Requirements".
I agree with your assertion that the Brandy Campaign is hopelessly entrenched in the idea that a total ban on guns is the way to go. And to a certain extent I also agree that the NRA's position has become all to predicable, but when your rights are under constant attack, it gets pretty easy to fall into that kind of rut of "just vote no".
But in your post I quote below, I saw a term used that goes to the core of the issue. The term used in Heller, and McDonald, that being "Reasonable Regulation". In Heller, the term "reasonable regulation" was used and now will become the lynch pin of the Constitutionality of every gun regulation and law that sees the light of day in this nation.
But the whole problem of the concept of "Reasonable Regulation" is that it addresses one side of the equation. That equation being lawfully armed citizens on one side, and armed criminals on the other. "Reasonable Regulation" has the effect of unbalancing the equation.
Lawfully Armed Citizens >/= Armed Criminals
Lawfully Armed Citizens < Armed Criminals
Reasonable Regulation
If Reasonable Regulation says I can not carry a gun, then in any confrontation with a violent criminal, that "reasonable regulation" has placed me in danger of being a defenseless victim, which is not "Constitutionally Reasonable Regulation" since it defeats the purpose of the right.
If the concept of the 2nd Amendment, as stated in Heller, is the individuals right to a means of self defense, how does the concept of "Reasonable Regulation" work when the result of the "Reasonable Regulation" is to then take that means of self defense away from me, but not the criminal.
IMHO one of the unfortunate outcomes of Heller and McDonald, is that for the next three to five decades, we will be battling in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, what constitutes "reasonable regulation".
Equally unfortunate is that during the years to come, cases such as the Zimmerman/Martin case will move
public opinion, and effect public policy, resulting in legislation that may or may not reach the Constitutional outcome of delivering "Reasonable Regulation". It is not the clear cut cases of self defense, with or without, a "stand your ground" aspect that will drive the conversation, but those imperfect cases, where even reasonable men can view the same circumstances, and arrive at different outcomes.
In a perfect world, Zimmerman/Martin would be judged based on the facts of the case, and justice would demand that each case be judged based on the evidence, not emotion, or political posturing, but this is not a perfect world, and what should be a call for justice in the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, has become a demand for revenge by mob mentality, and the wheels of political outcomes to satisfy mob mentality are already in motion.
Right or wrong in his actions, how is Zimmerman to be expected to receive a fair trial, predicated on the presumption of innocence, by a jury who has been contaminated by media and press accounts, public pronouncements of his guilt by elected officials, and the biased narrative of a media that awards, and rewards itself for getting it wrong, more often than they get it right.
In a perfect world, George Zimmerman, would face the judgment of a grand jury, his actions being judged by people who knew nothing of the case before the facts were presented to them, and they would determine if his actions were lawful, or unlawful. But that will not happen in this case. A grand jury will never hear this case, and Zimmerman will be charged, not because of his guilt, but because it has become necessary and politically expedient to place him on trial, to prevent the mob mentality from prevailing resulting in riots and civil unrest throughout this nation.
But what will happen if that trial results in an outcome the mob does not like, such as in the Rodney King case, Zimmerman may go free, based on the evidence, or a mistrial may result based on a pool of people who view the circumstances of the case and arrive at different outcomes.
What will the mob do then, as if it is not a forgone conclusion ,,,,,,and at that point many of us will find safety in the only means we have at our disposal, our right to carry weapons for self defense,,,,unless of course those "Reasonable Regulations" prevent us from having them.
I didn't give them anything. I cannot support the Brady Campaign (although the full name is fine).
The problem is that Brady Campaign pretty much strictly believes in the
LGGMGB position. This is a pathetically simplistic position. And it's a hopelessly futile philosophy. So, I cannot support a hopeless (hoplophobic) effort.
I support the NRA and share a lot of the values of all pro-gun orgs (BFA, VCDL, OCDO, etc.). Although, it is increasingly apparent that the pro-gun organizations' reliance on the
MGGLGB position is pretty stupid too. It's simplistic, and although it's been HUGELY effective in the last 30 years or so, it's increasingly clunky and too rigid to deal well with issues like
"reasonable regulation" of ownership, carry and use.
The two polarized efforts are a big problem for our society. And it will cause more grief for both the pros and the antis. Avoidable grief, really.
The answers to this problem are in something I was working on back in the days when I had more time. It's called:
HankT's Theory Of Inverse Firearm Requirements[suP]©[/suP] (HTIFR[suP]©[/suP]).
Too lengthy to describe in this thread. I wrote a blurb about it in prior thread:
http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?74686
Needs work, I know. But I'm on the right track . . .
In the meantime, I'm stuck in the uhm, traditional, pro-gun camp. It's not as ridiculous at the extremes as the anti-gun camp, IMO, although I could be wrong about that.
