I was recently lurking on a blog run by the rarest of all firearms prohibitionists, one who actually doesn’tcompletely lock his blog to comments from those who disagree.
The prohibitionists were claiming that the pro-gun people need to come to a compromise on the issue of gun policy. In response, one of the pro-rights folks asked the prohibitionists what laws they’d be willing to compromise on. They were asked what, if any, gun laws would they modify or repeal in their entirety.
This is the response from one of them:
It’s pretty funny when one of the most unreasonable and stubborn guys around asks what would we like to give up.
I’ve already told Bob, nothing. We give up nothing because this is not a bargaining situation like in business where you give and take.
This is a matter of right and wrong and a matter of life and death.
Emphasis is mine. Regardless, the response starts with an attack, and then veers straight off into zealot country.
I’ve long held the view that many people who espouse anti-gun positions actually do have a vested interest in reducing violent crime, and are simply trying to approach the topic from a (clearly incorrect, unworkable, and wrongheaded) position. I’ve always tried to avoid thinking of gun prohibitionists as a bunch of Snidely Whiplashesque, mustache-twirling, one-dimensional caricatures.
Evidently I may need to revise my stance.