Originally Posted by SDW2001
I don't think that's his position. To me it's a question of how far we go to ensure basic law and order, public health, etc. I tend to err on the side of personal responsibility.
So yes, it's a question of "how." We can work for healthier lunches and more phys-ed time in schools, as well as nutrition education. We should have sex ed classes and available precautions for STDS. But do we ban all candy and start passing out free condoms to everyone in school? No, I don't think we do. We should certainly fight political corruption and corporate malfeasance, but that doesn't mean we should indict all politicians and executives, either. Nor should we ban guns, for that matter. It's a question of how far we go. In my judgement we've already gone too far in many areas.
I think this goes back to the discussion of "unintended consequences." The government can be a good force in dealing with an issue... or it can exacerbate it and create an entirely new problem or set of problems.
There is a real tug of war in this country over if we've gone far enough or already too far in trying to solve problems. Look at gun control... just one of a hundred issues this same dynamic works for.
Many cities have decided to institute laws that make gun ownership illegal. In the search for "doing something about X" we've created an entirely different problem... criminals disregard the laws, at the same time good people have been made defenseless.
When there is a mall shooting, there is an instant reaction in two directions... first, those of us who support personal defense point out that there has been another sitting-duck killing in a so-called "gun free zone." We point out that there are not mass shootings at police stations, gun shows, etc. We say "you've gone too far, and people are dead because they were denied a means of self-defense."
On the other side, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Laut, Feinstein, McCarthy and crew make the same speech they've made for 25 years about there not being ENOUGH gun control. That even more disarmed people would be better and would prevent such shootings from happening again. Of course, they do happen again. And we keep getting bigger and bigger body counts as the distance to a gun, in the hands of the good guys, increases.
I think "gun free zones" have been shown to be a manifest failure. They've gone too far in some areas. The other side thinks that they have not taken away enough guns to make a difference, so we should let them pass more and more laws until safety increases. The problem is that the people who say "we need more laws to control X" have a cause to fight for until they have completely destroyed their target. The logical end to gun crime, from their perspective, is eliminating guns. The "unintended consequences" of gun bans is to create an entire class of defenseless people, facing an armed criminal element.
After a shooting, I always want to ask anti-gun people about why we are not "safe" and "how could this happen... you said that if we banned certain kinds of guns or put in new policies that we'd be safe. We gave up that liberty for your promise of security." Their response is, "well, this shows that we need more laws against guns and gun ownership." It's a never-ending death spiral... which most gun owners understand. Wanna see the end of the "restrict-incident-restrict" death spiral? Look at DC. I'm sure many of you wonder why some of us NRA types are so "radical" in your opinion. We've give up a lot of rights for the promise of the "common good," and there is never a level at which it is said "I think we've gone far enough and need to look at the other causes of gun crime."
The lost ground is rarely made up when the new policy "doesn't work." The 94 AWB was the exception. We know that, regardless of whatever we compromise or don't compromise on, the next incident will bring another wave of "we must restrict more."
In short, you can cause the problem or exacerbate it through your policies, then claim you need more laws and more power to "fix" what you have just made worse.
Reasonable laws, like FFL background checks and concealed carry laws, are supported by the people, and thus we have them. Outright wholesale gun bans, as well as easily-available machine guns are not... thus we do not have them.
I'm really fascinated with how people give up rights, in expectation of a situation being bettered, and then when it isn't, do not hold anyone accountable for their loss. They just bite on the next lie of "hey, THIS LAW will work where the others have failed." Such is the cycle.