Considered together, these three replies neatly demonstrate why the gun debate is at a standstill. What is a patent truism to one side is an obvious falsehood to the other. Wendy Kaminer argues that gun enthusiasts need to recognize that the NRA has become so virulent and unreasonable that it does a disservice to the gun-owning community, while Michael Krauss insists it is a much-maligned civil rights organization that has become almost soft in its politics, to the point that splinter groups are forced to take up the battle for our (perennially deteriorating) gun rights. Is it any wonder the gun debate has lost even the pretense of civility?I will mention that the one really anti-gun person spent most of her time railing against the NRA, which is an irrelevant position as far as I'm concerned. The gun rights/gun control argument doesn't have anything to do with the NRA; it has everything to do with freedom and oppression.
What did I bring out of reading this? Those who try to find a "balance" between opposing sides are completely missing the point. There is no balance, nor are their nuanced opinions. There is only truth, or lies.
I also disagree with her assertion that gun control proponents are interested in restricting guns in order to reduce crime. This has never been a real goal. It is only an excuse to destroy freedom.
I guess I'm one of those intractables who are the cause of the problem. But then I have never been interested in balance. I'm only interested in truth.