I don't think gun control is a bad idea, at least it is not on the same scale of problems as communism (communism is the end state of socialism, so no reason to name both). If you don't control guns, guns control you - and the USA are full of examples of persons who are controlled by their own guns, in fact so many that they have founded their own national association. So some kind of control is always needed - may it be by law or by simple responsibility and culture. If self-control would always work, we would need no laws.
Yes, communism is the end state of socialism, but most do not wish to accept that, which is why I'm in the habit of referring to both.
The other issue is a tough one to discuss, because there is a lot of culture at work (for both parties, in this case, you and I).
One thing that seems to come up with anyone who is a proponent of such "controls" is crime, violence, and accidents. And that's great. But it doesn't matter in the slightest.
Many people are agast at such a "callous" tone. But there is a point to be made here. The US Constitution, the product of the attempt to revise the Articles of Confederation during the Constitutional Convention, held in the state house (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia Pennsylvania in 1787, was a HOTLY contested matter. It caused a divide between the participants, those who liked it, and those who felt it was the model of the very thing they just fought a war over (a tyrannical government). To that end, certain concessions were made. These were listed as 10 amendments to the newly created Constitution. They are now known as The Bill of Rights.
In the first draft of the Bill of Rights, the right of the public to keep and bear arms (not just guns) was listed first, as it was clearly the most important. In the final draft, it came after the freedoms that everyone WANTED (why they came to the new world, and why they fought that war) - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Religion.
Notice though, the 1st covers 3 things in one. The 2nd lists only 1 thing. Something important enough to have an amendment all to itself, and listed second, because it protects the first. Further, the language was chosen to reflect it's importance, in spite of it not being listed first anymore.
What all this means, is that the whole POINT to having "guns" is to allow the people the final say. If ALL else fails, they ARE the militia, and it is upon them to secure the free-state they were being handed.
Now, logically, if the government is allowed to implement "controls" on this, it utterly defeats the point, countermands the letter and spirit of the Amendment, and even makes the entire government illegitimate, as it no longer has it's powers derived from the document that created it. (and is now effectively limitless in power, and the definition of tyranny)
This is why speaking of crime, violence or accidents is nothing more than mis-direction and handwringing. It's often (not saying it is in your case though) intentional misdirection as well, with malice of forethough.
Yes, we can use them to hunt, we can use them for sport, we can collect them, buy and trade them (for profit), and protect ourselves and loved ones from criminals too. But that's pure bonus, and utterly irrelevant and besides the point.
Yes, accidents will happen. Yes, criminals will use them on us too. But, by definition, criminals don't obey the law. So if you want to argue from a crime standpoint, disarming the law-abiding is a crminal's paradise (in addition to a tyrannical goverment's paradise). Even in places where the entire nation has banned them, they still show up.
Freedom is a risk. It is not free. It's cost, is 2-fold, eternal vigilance (against those who would take it), and the risk of danger which comes from having it.
To give you an idea of the nature of the values, and the culture that created this nation, Thomas Jefferson stated "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (in a letter to Archibald Stuart on Dec 23, 1791)
And he is absolutely correct (morally) in that stance. That is what was fought for. That is what is sought by people like me. That is also what is being taken away by liberals here (here meaning in this country), and led to my comments.
