Canvasback,
Even if they agree in writting not to ask for anything else, the next congress will claim they are not bound by the agreement and will hit us again anyway.
Mike
Very true Mike. Hence my position for no compromise.
It puts us in a bind, because truly, I believe some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Primarily those with evidenced mental health issues and convicted criminals.
But at the same time, having been victimized by the legal system and lawyers for being a gun owner when I found out my wife had been cheating on me with a close friend, I don't put much faith in the even handed application of potential rules by the socialist/feminist cartel of lawyers and activists that run our governments and the legal system.
Until we find a way to change the public perception of gun owners, away from the now 50 years of vilification by activists, elected officials and the media, every rule enacted will be twisted to screw us over.
I'd like to be able to support what Ed is talking about but real world experience tells me not to. It will be used against me.
My default position on any issue regarding governments is that they will waste money and their bureaucracy and policing will constantly infringe on my true rights. So my default response is to be against any and all government tax and fee increases, no matter the justification, because the money will be wasted. And to oppose every single new law, because there are enough now to do all that is necessary.
A key problem is we send politicians to work with the idea they are "lawnmakers". So what do they do? They make laws? Doesn't matter if the laws are needed, they are there to make them, so they do. We should start referring to politicians not as lawmakers but perhaps as "stewards" of our government and legal systems. There to oversee and ensure good management.
But stop with the lawmaking crap. You've had 250 years of it and we are close to 150 years. Enough is enough.
