I disagree with J. Kb. and I believe Kasky is trying to do the old “I am compromising what I believe so now it is your turn and you need to compromise your rights.”
A couple of days ago, I had a lengthy discussion with somebody who was trying to go out of his way to make me believe he understood what we were wanting and recited the proper keywords to back his claim. When I refused to budge, he lamented that my uncompromising attitude was not advancing the cause of peace (and other assorted BS platitudes) and that a simple background check and registration could not hurt anybody. I retorted that we had been compromising steadily since 1934 and it would be a great time for his side to do a real compromise, so I asked him if he would pledge his unconditional support to National Reciprocity.
He immediately started to come up with excuses and possible problems about standards between states. I told him that every state that issues a CWP requires the full information of the person, a photograph, fingerprints and a complete background check, the same things and even more he was just asking me to compromise on guns. Somehow that was not enough for him and recoiled at the idea of supporting National Reciprocity and the reason was obvious: they are not negotiating in good faith and will never do. All his “come to Jesus and understand your Fellow Citizens” was plain political maneuvering and misdirection and that is the same thing I smell from Kasky. I even offered to really sit down at the table and work gun laws we can all agree if we start from tabula rasa, cleans slate: No gun laws at all that would complicate an even and good-faith negotiation.
He has not replied to me yet.
I wonder why.
I read the article and I don’t see him anywhere saying anything about how he was wrong to support gun control; he just says he was wrong to go about it inefficiently. Then he mouths the same platitudes about “conversation” and”bipartisanship “, and how both sides are at fault.
Miguel has it right. This isn’t a ‘Road To Damascus’ conversion about the value of the Second Amendment; this is a salesman deciding that the hard sell isn’t working and he should try the soft con instead.
My bet is he’ll show up next peddling some variant of “Gee, l really think you gun owners have some valid points but surely you could compromise and support this new bit of gun control…”
Miguel, your not Dana Loesch
Do I need to get Grammar Nazi on your sorry ass? 😀
Miguel, I agree with you that he is just changing his sales tactic, not his beliefs. However, one point regarding your conversation with that other person on National Reciprocity. You state, “…every state that issues a CWP requires the full information of the person, a photograph, fingerprints and a complete background check.” Wisconsin does not require a photograph nor fingerprinting for its CCP. As valid a point would be to say that each state’s requirements for a drivers license can be different, but my license is valid in FL just as yours is valid here in Wisconsin.
Re fingerprinting: New Hampshire doesn’t do fingerprinting either for a permit. They no longer require it (constitutional carry) but still issue them if you want for example for reciprocity. Nor a photo. The form is one page with some basic questions, and the law specifically states that no town is allowed to modify the form or change the requirements.
The driver’s license analogy is the one to use. States control licensing, but all states recognize every driver’s license. They even recognize foreign ones, that’s what the “international driver’s license” is for.
Yup, the drivers lic is a good point to use. How many die by vehicle?? Maybe we should treat DLs like CCW permits heh heh. Constitutional carry is great BUT lots of people stick a gun in their pocket and think they are trained and ready and they know zip about the laws.