TexasCHLforum.com

Coming from someone who votes Democrat while still supporting gun rights, don't any of you think that it might be possible that if the Republican party stopped pushing to pass laws infringing on constitutionally afforded rights that aren't the second ammendment (as decided by the supreme court) things might improve a little?

To some degree, I can agree with your idea that polarization in the political sphere is a result of the actions on either side of the aisle. Where your arguments run off the rail for me is where you seem to be conflating legal definitions with rights. Natural rights are not so limited as a right to healthcare, a right to marry, and the like. The Bill of Rights enshrined in US law many of the natural rights that our Founders deemed most prone to be trod upon by an overbearing government -- all to help ensure a limited government and individual rights long-term.

You also mention such Republican traits as "overbearing religous morality, anti-science, heartless self interest, and wall building". I for one don't think these are Republican traits, but then again I try to look past what the 24/7 news tells me and think more about human nature, cause and effect. In a free society, it could be argued that antireligious amorality, science as religion and open borders are equally repugnant traits to some people, and that the party embodying them best is the Democrats. As for heartless self interest, I am firmly convinced that the political class as a whole, regardless of party affiliation, embodies this trait.

Collectivists have constantly pushed the "gun violence" issue, calling for some "common-sense" thing or another to be done each time an individual uses a gun as a tool of criminal destruction. The real agenda, of course, is simply to remove any force tools from common citizens, thereby making former citizens into subjects of the State.

Criminal violence, per capita, in the US is not as epidemic as our 24/7 news cycle would have us believe -- it certainly is not increasing in the way the media treatment would lead you to believe. Even if it were, there is no such thing as "gun violence". It takes a person pulling the trigger of a firearm to affect violence with a gun -- the gun simply cannot do so by itself.

Is it common sense to outlaw or restrict tools when behaviors (sometimes committed with the aid of said tools) are already against the law? Is a victim of a violent crime any more or less a victim due to the presence or absence of a tool? The "common-sense" measures proposed (and rightly opposed by the NRA and certain other single issue advocacy groups) are really all about incrementally infringing (to ultimately completely deny) the basic human right to protect oneself with appropriate tools. Once far enough down this path, subjects (former citizens) will be forced to comply with every command of their government overlords and the outlaw gangs.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can only be realized if basic human rights are respected, beginning with the right to protect oneself. Anti-gun collectivists fear Liberty with it components individual responsibility, discernment and decision-making -- all of which thwart movement to a proper authoritarian utopia where each exists to serve the collective.