“Also, there are rules and restrictions on abortion and more coming down the legislative pike every year. And the battle for privacy in the bedroom is still afoot as well. Equal rights is still a dream for millions of Americans.”

—————-

Absolutely! But do two or more wrongs make a right?

Why add an additional wrong to that list?

—————————————————————-

Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:35 pm

“The precedent is set. I am sorry you do not like it, but there it is nonetheless.”

—————-

As you said “there are rules and restrictions on abortion” which have set precedent, also. Are you saying that they should not be challenged — just because there is a precedent? That just because they are precedent are you assuming that they should not be rolled back? Does “there it is nonetheless” mean we should not work together to roll them back?

Are you saying that back when those first such efforts took place that there was “very compelling reasons” and “a very convincing case” for them?

If not, why make such an assumption for another set of bans?

Other than very early on (before I got to know you better) when have I accused you of advocating banning all guns?

Where have I said that about Dan, or most others?

Where have I presented the Hitler and “confiscation” fallacy?

OTOH, during a public panel Q & A session at VT, I saw a well known leader of the pro-more restrictions lobby, here in Virginia, sandbagged into actually defining what he thought was “reasonable restrictions” and adequate “training & proficiency” — i.e., what he would agree to as the minimum for carry. I know what Washington DC thinks is reasonable (no carry outside the home, although they appear to be thinking about softening that stance), what Chicago, NJ, MD, etc thinks is reasonable (only the very well connected), and what his-dishonor-from NYC talks about as reasonable. All propose or have extremely high hurdles or outright blocks — to serve as per-adjudication bans on a right they do not want the average citizen to have.

These pro-more restrictions players are convinced that it is better to deny “the many” the right to self-protection because it might stop some small number from [fill-in-the-blank] in the future — all the while being in denial of the criminals’ disregard for those very laws that create vast “unarmed victim zones” in which those very criminals prey on the average citizen.

These pro-more restrictions shakers and movers preach “It could be, but never mind what it is doing”– and that is not logical, IMHO.

“…and refusing you your not needed self defense”

Like everything else, it’s not needed until it is needed. What in the world is your point here? Are you suggesting that if confronted with danger, that Dave Hicks should die for what you believe in?

Please tell me how that’s NOT what you’re suggesting.

“Could they back when the first gun control efforts took place? The precedent is set. I am sorry you do not like it, but there it is nonetheless.”

No. Tell us about it.

Also, there are rules and restrictions on abortion and more coming down the legislative pike every year. And the battle for privacy in the bedroom is still afoot as well. Equal rights is still a dream for millions of Americans.

But that is ALL beside the point, to your mind everything is about banning guns and refusing you your not needed self defense while stripping you of your God-given right. The truth is that very, very, very seldom has the discussion EVER been about that in any real sense. That is your red herring and you trot it out with a regimented zeal. I am truly surprised we got to 146 posts without the dreaded Hitler and “confiscation” argument.

In reality, everyone who is not for you is not against you.

Sandi,

In a conversation with a TP member today, I was making a point about freedom of choice.

As an anti-authoritarian, I used the term “true need” applying it to the goverment.

As I have said before on this blog, I don’t think that the goverment should be in the boardroom or the bedroom, without very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case for such action. I have also said the same sort of thing about a women’s womb — and stated that I do not see such a convincing case for such action.

Today, I put all three together with your term true need and said, “I don’t think that the goverment should be in the boardroom or the bedroom or a women’s womb without proving a true need.”

I suspect that in the case of last two incidents “the bedroom or a women’s womb” you might agree with me.

I would hope that you might think about that in terms of “keeping and bearing” arms.

If the government should not restrict (w/o very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case) a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy after a rape, why then should the government be able restrict her right to a self-defensive weapon before the rape (w/o very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case)?

Not only do I think that the “true need” to prove a need for something lies with the goverment to prove very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case before restricting citizens’ or legal residences’ freedom of self-defensive carry of weapons (including guns, knives, etc*); I also think that such an approach is the route to the working together and is the foundation for some of the restrictions that we both see as reasonable — e.g., the current restrictions on folk convicted of violent felonies or violent misdemeanors until adjudicated reformed, the current restriction on folk who are mentally ill and adjudicated as a danger to society and/or themselves, etc.

—
* for the full list of the currently restricted weapons see § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry; penalty http://tinyurl.com/5uwnq

What does the anti-liberty folk’s mantra demanding someone to prove “true ‘need’” have to do with anything?

FWIIW, maybe I should add his dishonor from NYC’s 32 oz drinks to my list, also.

Did anyone notice that the week after he announced his intent to ban 32 oz sodas he proclaimed/approved doughnut week and made the opening remarks at a hotdog eating contest?

Well done Jason.

—–

BTW, Justin True, according to http://tinyurl.com/bfz6bez Virginia has 30,200 — the most registered machine guns of any State.

How many of those legally owned weapons have been used in a crime?

If you can’t document a problem, what’s your issue?

Apparently not, because there’s been none.

Does Dave Hicks “need” sleep after thousands of gun deaths much further away than the one in Montgomery Co. that he reported caused him sleeplessness?

Apparently, because he’s not reported any sleep disturbance from them.