The left has stepped up its assault on conservatives in leaps and bounds since this prez was elected in 2008. They have been called racists, extremists, tea-baggers, and so on. They have been called outdated. The list goes on, and yet somehow you want them to have discussions with you...no less about the guns they own??? The arrogance is mind boggling.
But that is imaginary. It is naive to believe a President can do that. First of all Obama has not issued an Executive Order declaring an entire class of weapons illegal. The President can't wholesale declare something illegal that has not been defined as such by legislation. He can probably issue a legally tenable order that would make the sale and transfer of guns perhaps a little more burdensome, but only within the framework of existing legislation. He could nibble around the edges administratively, but he cannot decree law. Biden said they are exploring executive orders while Congress deliberates. He sent Biden out with a trial balloon, or Joe did it himself, who knows. That's it. No need to soil your shorts. All this talk about tyranny is ridiculous. Presidents can wield extraordinary even extra legal power only in the most extraordinary and dire of circumstances. Stop worrying. No one is going to take your guns away.
Of course it is negotiable. That's what a Democracy implies,even demands: negotiation and lawmaking. Only under a tyranny is there no negotiation.
It's never ridiculous. So far, we have not had to deal with it here, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Whenever politicians love power and control, the threat exists. Why does the left believe it can never happen here? Just curious. How do you define tyranny? It can come in many shapes and might even be benevolent and hardly noticeable to those willing to except its requirements. That doesn't make it any better if it infringes on your rights to various freedoms.
I might agree with you under a different situation, but this was the act of a criminal. The crime occurring in this country on all levels are a direct consequence of gov policies over the decades. Why should you or I have to give one damn inch because of failed gov policies? If groups of trouble makers were out shooting up places over ideology, that might be different. Then a discussion would be warranted, but that's not happening. Kids who are mentally unstable are being doped up, desensitized, and getting access to guns. They are lone incidents. Don't make me pay because of that! Determine who they are and keep them from getting weapons...but not by taking mine away, regardless of clip or round size. Do we agree on that?
I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of certain people, people who would clearly pose a danger to others. That is hard to do though, practically speaking. If you are in a free society, and you have no spot on your record, you can buy a gun. You could l be totally fucking crazy and still pass a background check. And you can easily buy a gun illegally. My response to the negotiation issue was theoretical. Guns could be definitively prohibited, for example, by a Consitutional amendment, which would be the result of a long process of a type of negotiation and voting. I am not advocating that btw. I don't want to strip citizens of the right to possess guns, nor do I wish to see an effort at confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens. But if localities and states wish to cease the sale and or transfer of Semi Automatics within thier juridictions, then I would not oppose thier efforts to do so. I feel that if a community doesn't want guns, they should have the option to enforce that, and likewise, if a community wants the option of guns, the greater political entity - the state or the fed - should not prevent them from allowing guns. On a community banning guns, that isn't legal Constitutionally. But I think it is preferable to have a community decide for itself on this particular issue. I don't rank gun ownership on the same level as freedom of worship, or free speech, or freedom from unreasonable search and siezure.
That's a good point, and if you expand the notion of tyranny, then I think we see it operating at all levels in culture to some extent. Tyranny of conformity, or the tyranny of educational testing for example. I was referring to classic political tyranny, like Stalin, Hussein, Mao. And no, I don't see that kind of tyranny emerging here.