While the Supreme Court affirmed the existence of an individual right to bear arms in D.C.
Gun owners' tendency to take absolutist and seemingly unreasonable positions on even the most mild forms of regulation is only heightened by the uncertainty about the true scope of the protection afforded by the Second Amendment. If America's gun owners concede even small things now, they risk further erosions of rights later. In both countries, the politics following several mass killings have led to remarkably restrictive gun-rights regimes that most Americans would oppose. The British and Australian experiences with gun-rights legislation actually supports this sense of paranoia. This fear of slippery slopes is why gun-rights advocates seem so unreasonable - they are unwilling to compromise today because they do not trust that the terms of their deal will be honored by the public and by gun-rights opponents in the future. NRA members have a very healthy fear of slippery slopes, and they worry that if they concede today on, say, reducing the permissible magazine size to 10 rounds, the next time some wacko goes into a school using those 10-round magazines and kills children, gun-control activists will call to reduce the magazine capacity even more.
The reason for this is simple: Gun owners take the position that they would rather defend their rights from the Rhine than from the Rubicon.
#2nd amendment revisions crack
Every time a madman uses a gun to kill people, gun-control advocates harness the nation's raw emotions to pressure legislators to crack down on whatever the prevailing gun-rights regime is at the time of the shooting.Įach and every time, gun owners fight like hell against any and every proposal, seemingly irrespective of the merits of the options on the table.
0 kommentar(er)
